Another mode: pure?

[MoUsE_WiZ]

Would you like to see an additional checkbox on the character select screen...
Expansion [] (given enough time, ofc ^^)
Ladder [] (depending if they implement it the same way which they might not)
Hardcore [] (we can all /wrist if it's not there)
Pure []

Pure is the word from D1.
Basically you'd only have the ability to use items that were found in the game/zone/vicinity your character is in. In other words... no trading. To steal wow terms, every single smallest item is BoP. Since D3 is supposedly using a system where what drops is for your eyes only, I'd suggest adding a sort of master loot functionality so that if something you can use drops for someone else off of whatever boss, they can give it to you before picking it up... seems easier than giving it to you after while still maintaining a no-trade system.

And no, this is not "untwinked".
D2 players have just warped the term "untwinked" to mean something that it doesn't mean in any other game I've ever played ~_~

[5zigen]

Would you like to see an additional checkbox on the character select screen...
Expansion [] (given enough time, ofc ^^)
Ladder [] (depending if they implement it the same way which they might not)
Hardcore [] (we can all /wrist if it's not there)
Pure []

Pure is the word from D1.
Basically you'd only have the ability to use items that were found in the game/zone/vicinity your character is in. In other words... no trading. To steal wow terms, every single smallest item is BoP. Since D3 is supposedly using a system where what drops is for your eyes only, I'd suggest adding a sort of master loot functionality so that if something you can use drops for someone else off of whatever boss, they can give it to you before picking it up... seems easier than giving it to you after while still maintaining a no-trade system.

And no, this is not "untwinked".
D2 players have just warped the term "untwinked" to mean something that it doesn't mean in any other game I've ever played ~_~

Do not like.

the Purist movement in D1 was because nearly 100% of items were duped in the very least, or found by someone who was using duped items. I don't think that really needs to be transfered to D3.

Additionally, I think it splits up the game too much. From the start having HC, SC and Pure might be too much, and potentially HC Pure.

And additionally, I don't think it has much draw in terms of online play. Basically you're playing online and then restricting yourself to a single player economy. It seems too much like single player to me.

And i think it would just be too tough from an item standpoint, and too many item changes.

[MoUsE_WiZ]

the Purist movement in D1 was because nearly 100% of items were duped in the very least, or found by someone who was using duped items.
Then why do so many people play (what they call) untwinked in D2?
It's just a rather common challenge people like to add to their game play.

primarily HC Pure.
Fixed ~_~
I'd forsee more people picking HC than SC if they wanted pure, as it's aimed at the people who want a greater challenge.
Though splitting up the game is the most obvious drawback, I suspect D3's playerbase will be large enough to support it.

And additionally, I don't think it has much draw in terms of online play. Basically you're playing online and then restricting yourself to a single player economy. It seems too much like single player to me.
Blizzard has stated in numerous places they're looking to increase co-op play.
I think taking away trading goes a long ways towards doing exactly that, for two reasons.
1) It makes the game more difficult, so co-op is more desirable, especially in the difficult areas.
2) It encourages splitting up drops, because what else are you even going to do with them?

And i think it would just be too tough from an item standpoint, and too many item changes.

I'm not sure how it would be tough at all. They've already hinted at a (very small) number of items having BoP functionality, just a matter of reusing said code (if they've got BoP implemented in a non-sloppy sort of way) and writing an extra function to allow for item distribution before hitting the inventory (which they already have an outline for in WoW).

[Morannon]

If I understand you right, what you want is a dedicated game mode for what is called untwinked in D2.

Awesome. Put it in there. Post it at Bnet forum so Blizz can see it.

Finally us untwinkers could backup our bragging with some statistics.

[5zigen]

Then why do so many people play (what they call) untwinked in D2?
It's just a rather common challenge people like to add to their game play.


Untwinked generally didn't mean complete exclusion of trading. not to my knowledge at least. Particularly, when people played untwinked with groups they would usually trade amongst themselves.


Fixed ~_~
I'd forsee more people picking HC than SC if they wanted pure, as it's aimed at the people who want a greater challenge.
Though splitting up the game is the most obvious drawback, I suspect D3's playerbase will be large enough to support it.

That's supposing that they add no other game modes, and I know this is kind of a red herring, but every additional game mode they add doubles the char.

With Pure, HC, SC just the addition of ladder turns it into 8 divisions. I mean, the playerbase might be big enough to support it but is it good for the game in the long run? There were all sorts of challenges in D2 and D1, Iron man, Pure game in D2 usually denoted playing each area only once and trying to get through the game. People even played it with no skills untwinked (basically letting their merc beat the game). I'm all for recognizing challenge but I'd rather not divide up the gameplay excessively.


Blizzard has stated in numerous places they're looking to increase co-op play.
I think taking away trading goes a long ways towards doing exactly that, for two reasons.
1) It makes the game more difficult, so co-op is more desirable, especially in the difficult areas.
2) It encourages splitting up drops, because what else are you even going to do with them?

I'm not sure how it would be tough at all. They've already hinted at a (very small) number of items having BoP functionality, just a matter of reusing said code (if they've got BoP implemented in a non-sloppy sort of way) and writing an extra function to allow for item distribution before hitting the inventory (which they already have an outline for in WoW).

Well, As for your point 1. I don't really think playing untwinked makes the game harder per se. It makes the game a larger time investment. It is essentially saying that instead of mfing with 1 character and distributing the loot to all your chars, each of your characters will be individually mfing their own loot. I know to some people, this goes against the 'spirit' of untwinked, and a lot of purists wouldn't go for it, but you cant really draw a line between mfing and running an area multiple times for any other reason. so ultimately it will still be in the game.

While it might inspire some people to group up, I think we would see basically normal behavior, except people would spend less time playing the game with each character, and more time hunting for loot since finding the setup you want can be so incredibly hard. In short, I simply don't think removing the economy is going to encourage team play.

As for point 2, I left the second paragraph there because of that. Essentially what you're asking for is a complete revamp of the drop system for this one mode of gameplay. In addition to that, you're having to implement a new, fairly complex ruleset into the game, one that will disallow anyone to pick up items that have been dropped by other players. I mean, its most likely technically possible, but does it make sense to do all this extra work that is ultimately for a challenge that doesnt REALLY mean anything. No offense untwinked players, it's just the same game with more time investment into each player.

A further concern with this would be a balance one. Just using D2 as a throwback example, the "pure" game would be ruled by characters that were good at mfing, simply because the gear advantage of those characters would be nearly insurmountable. In the end I think it amplifies any imbalances in terms of item dependancy and mf ability.


One way I could see this being implemented, that would leave the accomplishment in game, without risking the integrity of the system and without dividing the community any more, would be to simply have an achievement in game (ideally there would be multiple achievements).

Perhaps just have a "purist" achievement that is branded on your character as long as you have never traded or picked up an item dropped by another player. I realize this may be hypocritical as it could potentially be more time consuming than implementing a all bop system, but it would go a long way toward not dividing the community.

Note that this wouldn't work with HC (achievement only hc) because HC players could then economically interact with SC players which spoils the entire economy and purity of the HC experience. In the "purist" sense we're talking about no economic involvement so it wouldnt be a big deal in that sense. The only problem would be that Pure and non Pure players could end up playing together, which some (I) might see as a good thing as it goes a long way to not fracture the gaming community, but others might see it as an affront on untwinked or pure play, to play with other people who are not as pure as them.

In the end, I simply don't think we need a game mode for every challenge. Particularly in this case, I think an achievement system would be much more positive an implementation.

Do we really "NEED" an ironman mode for example? I would much rather just have long dungeon that our normal characters could take part in that has no option of refreshing your character or replenishing items. I think there is often a better way to implement challenges into the game than by dividing the community into groups of people who want to be forced to take these challenges.

[MoUsE_WiZ]

Untwinked generally didn't mean complete exclusion of trading. not to my knowledge at least. Particularly, when people played untwinked with groups they would usually trade amongst themselves.
Trading amongst themselves, yes, all the time.
Trading with others? In every game other than D2 I've ever played, that would not make you a twink (eg, anybody ever called somebody's WoW main a twink for having bought crafting mats? no... primarily just their X9 bracket duelers), but in D2, many people would say it does.



That's supposing that they add no other game modes, and I know this is kind of a red herring, but every additional game mode they add doubles the char.
Indeed, that's also an issue. There are three ways that it can be adressed though:
1) Disallow certain combinations.
2) Remove other options (I'm looking at you, ladder ~_~)
3) Limit the number of new options (pure is a fairly popular way to play is why I suggest it, ironman doesn't really work because theoretically as soon as you leave the game you're in you're done anyways)

With Pure, HC, SC just the addition of ladder turns it into 8 divisions. I mean, the playerbase might be big enough to support it but is it good for the game in the long run?
4 modes hasn't hurt D2 in the long run.
I'd like to see the ladder system reworked entirely so as to not be a seperate mode, and if not I suspect that D3 will be able to handle 8 modes in the *long* run in the same way D2 has... there's really only 3 that people play, and I don't believe it costs blizzard all that much to maintain the unpopular ones as they ARE all on the same servers.

There were all sorts of challenges in D2trying to get and D1, Iron man, Pure game in D2 usually denoted playing each area only once and through the game.
You forgot my favourite... I forget the name of the variant, but using only the cursed items in D1 ^^

However, there are 3 in D2, and 1 in D1 that are particularily common:
1) level to 9 and duel... that would just be plain silly to have a seperate mode for
2) ironman... in order to do this you'd need to completely rework the ruleset (eg party members would change every game, you start in town every game regardless, you shouldn't be able to farm areas) and it really wouldn't be ironman any more at all. Another key rule of ironman in D1 is that it was you only live once, so it'd have to be HC only if they wanted to stay true to it. I wouldn't mind a ruleset similar to ironman being implemented instead of pure though.
3) intentionally underpowered builds... far to general to actually attempt to enforce, and unique builds speak for themselves without a seperate mode (providing there are no respecs in some place that we play)
4) playing only with what you find... clearly I'm trying to argue in favour of this ~_~

I don't think any other variant, given D1/2, would really warrant discussion.
They might do something silly like create RP servers, but I don't think that really fits the Diablo player base at all.



Well, As for your point 1. I don't really think playing untwinked makes the game harder per se. It makes the game a larger time investment.
This is true.
And I'd likely be one of the people doing exactly that.
There are various ways of dealing with this through an achievement system though, eg one for never repeating an area prior to completion of the game, another for time, that sort of thing. Possibly making it so you can only appear on the ladder with those 2 achievements. This would depend on how prevelant power leveling/rushing is, of course, but there are ways around that.

As for point 2, I left the second paragraph there because of that. Essentially what you're asking for is a complete revamp of the drop system for this one mode of gameplay.
True, however I don't believe "complete" and "difficult" are the same thing in this case.

In addition to that, you're having to implement a new, fairly complex ruleset into the game, one that will disallow anyone to pick up items that have been dropped by other players.
They already have the mechanic in the game to only show one player's loot to that player when dropped from monsters, I don't imagine it would be at all difficult to apply that code to loot dropped from players. Especially since they already have a way to bind certain items to (or away from) certain players (they have this in D2 too btw, heph's hammer, for example).

I mean, its most likely technically possible, but does it make sense to do all this extra work that is ultimately for a challenge that doesnt REALLY mean anything. No offense untwinked players, it's just the same game with more time investment into each player.
The same could be said for HC.

A further concern with this would be a balance one. Just using D2 as a throwback example, the "pure" game would be ruled by characters that were good at mfing, simply because the gear advantage of those characters would be nearly insurmountable. In the end I think it amplifies any imbalances in terms of item dependancy and mf ability.
"Balance" and "diablo" beside each other is an oxymoron.
I hope they care that every class is capable of solo play to some extent, I hope they don't care too much about keeping said extent all that close. And besides, if SP remains in the game, this arguement applies there just as much as it does here.


The only problem would be that Pure and non Pure players could end up playing together, which some (I) might see as a good thing as it goes a long way to not fracture the gaming community, but others might see it as an affront on untwinked or pure play, to play with other people who are not as pure as them.
Pure characters who have been around for a long time playing with new pure characters would essentially amount to the same thing.

However I'd still rather see segregation ^_^

[konfeta]

See! See what I mean?

Everyone wants a separate mode! If this trend keeps on going and, God Forbid, Blizzard listens, we will have 100 different servers by the time Diablo 3 comes out...

[5zigen]

The same could be said for HC.


No.

The same has been argued for HC, that HC is no 'harder' than the real game, when it actually is. People will ultimately argue that HC only 'slows the game down' but we (people who played HC) know that that isn't true in general, and actually in many case speeds up the game because you spend 0 time recovering your corpse.

The ONLY difference with a pure game is that you're removing player interaction with each other. The only end result is that it's just a game that will force players to spend more time mfing and less time trading, and I don't think thats part of the dev teams vision.

[MoUsE_WiZ]

No.

The same has been argued for HC, that HC is no 'harder' than the real game, when it actually is.

I don't think it actually is harder.

It *does* slow the game down getting to the point where you can do a certain task safely, though you're right that after you're at that point it's not any slower either.

The learning curve isn't nearly as friendly, but once you've got it figured out it's also just the exact same game only with a bit of a thrill associated... the thrill isn't because it's harder, though.

Analogy... gambling with real money isn't any trickier than gambling with play money. With play money you may be more inclined to make stupid bets, making it friendlier to learn what the stupid bets are, but in the end if you want to succeed at it, you've still got to learn the exact same stuff.

(gambling vs people doesn't work there, only vs something that acts the same with or without play money)

[5zigen]

I don't think it actually is harder.

It *does* slow the game down getting to the point where you can do a certain task safely, though you're right that after you're at that point it's not any slower either.

The learning curve isn't nearly as friendly, but once you've got it figured out it's also just the exact same game only with a bit of a thrill associated... the thrill isn't because it's harder, though.

Analogy... gambling with real money isn't any trickier than gambling with play money. With play money you may be more inclined to make stupid bets, making it friendlier to learn what the stupid bets are, but in the end if you want to succeed at it, you've still got to learn the exact same stuff.

(gambling vs people doesn't work there, only vs something that acts the same with or without play money)

How about this analogy.

Walking a tightrope that is 3 inches off the ground. It's super easy to make it 100 feet on the tight rope, because if you fall off you can get right back on.

On the other hand, walking 100 feet on a tightrope that's 100 feet off the ground is much 'harder' even though walking the tightrope is just as difficult (discounting wind) regardless of height, making it from one side to the other without stepping off is much more difficult than if you can step off.

I still maintain that HC isn't any 'slower'. In SC you can take more risk, but usually that risk results in a death or two, which slows down the game greatly. In hc you take less risk, but you die less, and the act of simply dying less speeds up the game greatly. It may be slightly slower, but only very slightly.

But again, go over why the mode should be be included as a segregation rather than just as a noted accomplishment (as I suggested with the achievements).

I'm not saying it isn't a valid way to play, and admittedly in D2 the fun for me was maxing my character, or getting as close as possible without using hacked items, because I've beat the game untwinked in hc, and all in all it was simply a larger time investment, going pure would just mean (to me) that finishing a character is essentially impossible, which I don't really see as 'fun'.

[srs0]

First off, in regards to the mode. Personally, I'd love it, as that's the way that I play around half the time (depending on my mood). However, I don't know if adding an entire mode would be a good idea. As people have mentioned, adding more and more modes fractures the player base. A sub-mode would be fine where you play with others of the same type (HC or SC), but creating SCP and HCP would be a bit over the top.

It shouldn't be too hard to implement as a sub-mode either. You could just have every item dropped have a list of characters in the game/party when it drops. If one of the characters leave, clear the value. That way you can only trade/give the item with/to others who were with you at the time. It shouldn't be too hard or memory intensive since there can only be a few people present at the time.


How about this analogy.

Walking a tightrope that is 3 inches off the ground. It's super easy to make it 100 feet on the tight rope, because if you fall off you can get right back on.



Hmmm, not sure I agree with that analogy either. I think of it more like this (with your tight rope):
You're walking a tight rope, the "height" isn't important. However, the rules involved are. If you fall off in normal, you have to take a step backwards and then you can get back on the tightrope there. However, if you fall off in HC, then you have to go back to the very start of the tightrope. As such, SC is faster for the average player, as they only have to take a step back, whereas HC can be just as fast as SC, but not faster. Faster would imply that you can beat HC quicker than you can beat SC with zero deaths in either.

While this may be the case for an average HC player compared to an average SC player (I won't argue either way), it's not true versus yourself. Against yourself, as a longtime HC player, the odds are you'll make it through SC without a death if you make it through HC without a death (barring unforeseen circumstances). As such, your trip through HC won't be any faster than your trip through SC. Maybe your playstyle changes between modes and you're more likely to die in SC than in HC, but when I end up playing SC I play very similarly if not the same.

On the other hand, if you're counting speed as how long until you stop playing the character, then yes, HC is probably faster. In SC you generally play a character until you get tired of them, and in HC you generally aren't given a choice to stop. :P Much faster in many cases!

[5zigen]

Hmmm, not sure I agree with that analogy either. I think of it more like this (with your tight rope):
You're walking a tight rope, the "height" isn't important. However, the rules involved are. If you fall off in normal, you have to take a step backwards and then you can get back on the tightrope there. However, if you fall off in HC, then you have to go back to the very start of the tightrope. As such, SC is faster for the average player, as they only have to take a step back, whereas HC can be just as fast as SC, but not faster. Faster would imply that you can beat HC quicker than you can beat SC with zero deaths in either.

While this may be the case for an average HC player compared to an average SC player (I won't argue either way), it's not true versus yourself. Against yourself, as a longtime HC player, the odds are you'll make it through SC without a death if you make it through HC without a death (barring unforeseen circumstances). As such, your trip through HC won't be any faster than your trip through SC. Maybe your playstyle changes between modes and you're more likely to die in SC than in HC, but when I end up playing SC I play very similarly if not the same.

On the other hand, if you're counting speed as how long until you stop playing the character, then yes, HC is probably faster. In SC you generally play a character until you get tired of them, and in HC you generally aren't given a choice to stop. :P Much faster in many cases!

I wasn't talking solely about the speed. I was talking about in general.

Walking a tightrope from point a to point b, if you can fall off and get back on, is easy.

Walking it without ever falling, on the other hand, is more difficult. Essentially what I'm saying is that in HC you can't fall, in SC you can. Getting from a to b without falling is where the challenge lies.

As for speed, I'm not so sure how analogous it is. Faster wouldn't imply that you could beat HC faster than SC with no deaths in either. Faster simply implies that in general HC can reach higher level faster.

I know against myself, I can play HC much faster than SC, because if I play HC I make it a point to never die. If I'm playing as fast as possible in SC, I will probably die, which will slow me down when compared to my hc game, particularly once it enters nm and hell. In general though, the idea that HC is simply "slower" than SC is a misnomer.

On the other hand, calling "Pure" or "Untwinked" simply slower than non "pure" because you're doing one of two things, playing a character that is simply weaker in power level which means you will kill monsters slower, OR you are spending more time mfing to get to the same power level. Particularly in SC mode because there is no way of failing.

[MoUsE_WiZ]

Walking it without ever falling, on the other hand, is more difficult. Essentially what I'm saying is that in HC you can't fall, in SC you can. Getting from a to b without falling is where the challenge lies.
Here's the thing... anyone walking a tightrope, whether it be 3 feet off the ground or 300, has the goal in mind of getting across without falling.

Clearly the person at 300 feet cares more about not falling than the person at 3 feet (barring any unusual circumstances, such as a gun to the head) but the challenge is equally difficult (again barring outside circumstances, such as a large gust of wind that *could not* occur at 3 feet). Hell the person at 3 feet can fall as often as they like, just for comedic value if they feel like it, and still cross the rope. But that person *WILL* still make it across more quickly if they never fall, so the challenge *IS* still there, just not the risk.

Oh, and the reason your analogy doesn't work is that in HC you still get infinite tries. With a 300 foot tightrope not so much. A closer one would be what srs0 described. Or if you want to stick with 300 vs 3... the person on the 300 foot rope falls off, lands in the safety net, climbs up a rather large ladder, and goes again, while the person on the 3 foot rope hops on where they left off.

As for speed, I'm not so sure how analogous it is. Faster wouldn't imply that you could beat HC faster than SC with no deaths in either. Faster simply implies that in general HC can reach higher level faster.
This season on EaHCL there were 3 groups fighting for the top all night.
CTA, fTw, and an untagged group which consisted primarily of players intent on being first to 99.

fTw got Guardian first, but a few members of their group died.
The untagged group was on the top of the levels for a while, but first of all, they went to sleep sooner as slow and steady wins the race (well, not slow, but slower ^^), they also suffered numerous deaths.
CTA was on top at the end of the night. And only suffered 1 death, which was well after the hell baals started.

Softies were ahead of us all, in all departments. They were higher level at the end of the night, they killed baal first, and they recently hit 99 before us as well.
But not by much. Except the 99 thing, but that's mainly because EaHCL's #1 recently suicided his character for real life reasons.

The top of SC is faster than the top of HC because the 1 in 100 death in SC isn't a big deal until the mid 90s. The bottom of SC is faster than the bottom of HC because the bottom of HC are the guys who keep dying in normal and *CAN'T* break 30.

I will agree that it is possible for a large number of HC players to go faster than a large number of SC players, but I wouldn't say that HC players in general are faster than SC.

I know against myself, I can play HC much faster than SC, because if I play HC I make it a point to never die. If I'm playing as fast as possible in SC, I will probably die, which will slow me down when compared to my hc game, particularly once it enters nm and hell. In general though, the idea that HC is simply "slower" than SC is a misnomer.

On the other hand, calling "Pure" or "Untwinked" simply slower than non "pure" because you're doing one of two things, playing a character that is simply weaker in power level which means you will kill monsters slower, OR you are spending more time mfing to get to the same power level. Particularly in SC mode because there is no way of failing.
Here's some benefits I've thought up since you keep pressing the issue... admittedly I didn't have said benefits at the time of writing the post, that's mainly because it just seems natural to me that a seperate mode would be funtastic.

1) If it's achievement based, and you're playing with people in an economy, then they are NOT going to be splitting loot they find and can't use with you.
2) I'd suspect there will be a fairly significant gold and/or item farming issue in D3, given that they've stated failed to put a stop to it in WoW. And WoW even has a primarily BoP item system. A seperate mode would provide a haven from (most) of that... leveling people paying to have characters leveled would be unescapable, but you wouldn't have to deal with ebayers.
3) You'd get to PvP against players who have also had to invest the same huge amounts of time in their characters, instead of people who will have access to *much* better gear than you despite having invested less time in obtaining it.
4) If the item system is similar to D2, I suspect botting would become much less of an issue. Again, people still bot WoW, so I image it'll still happen in D3. Not to it's current extent, but it'll be an issue. True the botters would be at a certain gear level much sooner than you, but the things that really make the botters scary now, such as having 9x 1/40+ charms and 10x 17/20s, are things that they would never be able to pick up on their own. Even more so because the benefits of running multiple bots would be completely negated.

That's what I've got so far, I suspect I'll be able to come up with more.
I believe my previous statement of "it'd be like playing with an established pure character" or whatever I said exactly was in error.

On the topic of splitting the player base...
People playing pure for the fun of it already split themselves from the player base, if I'm running a pure character there's a good chance I'm not going to want to play with tainted characters anyways (for some of the reasons I've described above).

I'd like to be able to take said character, and play it with like minded players. I don't see the harm in taking an imaginary border around every single player who's removed themselves from the economy and putting a tangible border up around all of them.



Another implementation that I'd not mind that could work with the achievement system, to borrow an idea that seems common with the pk debate... just turn it into a mode when creating games instead of on character select. Once you lose the achievement, you lose the ability to create/join such games. You lose the achievement once you enter a non-pure game.

This would require game sorting features more advanced than D2's... but not much more (and likely less) than what *craft has going.

[entranced]

On the topic of splitting the player base...
People playing pure for the fun of it already split themselves from the player base, if I'm running a pure character there's a good chance I'm not going to want to play with tainted characters anyways (for some of the reasons I've described above).

I'd like to be able to take said character, and play it with like minded players. I don't see the harm in taking an imaginary border around every single player who's removed themselves from the economy and putting a tangible border up around all of them.


When you put it that way, yes i'd like to see this mode.

[Gigashadow]

I don't mind this, but I won't be the one ever using this, either.

[5zigen]

Here's the thing... anyone walking a tightrope, whether it be 3 feet off the ground or 300, has the goal in mind of getting across without falling.

Well, exactly. But the point is, if you are allowed to get back on the tightrope after falling, it will be much less difficult to make it across than if you have to start over every time you fall off.

I mean we were just looking at my metaphor from different angles, I was looking at it as "guiding the character" across the tightrope and you were looking at it as though I was walking the tightrope myself. But good thing WE don't die with our characters. That would definintely keep me away from HC.



This season on EaHCL there were 3 groups fighting for the top all night.
CTA, fTw, and an untagged group which consisted primarily of players intent on being first to 99.

I figured you'd come in with the hcl is slower than scl, but I think you even gave the reason why, and it isn't because they are slower in general, it can also be attributed to several other factors.

Perhaps the SCL people have more accounts thus higher exp / player in game. Perhaps SCL people are more apt to share accts and level 24/7 since theres no real chance for loss. I know I'd be upset if a friend of mine died on my highest level hcl character. And finally there's the probability thing you mentioned. Every death slows down the whole group in HC on a whole lot more than every death in a sc game, and the probability of experiencing a group death is higher with more people in the group.




Here's some benefits I've thought up since you keep pressing the issue... admittedly I didn't have said benefits at the time of writing the post, that's mainly because it just seems natural to me that a seperate mode would be funtastic.

1) If it's achievement based, and you're playing with people in an economy, then they are NOT going to be splitting loot they find and can't use with you.
2) I'd suspect there will be a fairly significant gold and/or item farming issue in D3, given that they've stated failed to put a stop to it in WoW. And WoW even has a primarily BoP item system. A seperate mode would provide a haven from (most) of that... leveling people paying to have characters leveled would be unescapable, but you wouldn't have to deal with ebayers.
3) You'd get to PvP against players who have also had to invest the same huge amounts of time in their characters, instead of people who will have access to *much* better gear than you despite having invested less time in obtaining it.
4) If the item system is similar to D2, I suspect botting would become much less of an issue. Again, people still bot WoW, so I image it'll still happen in D3. Not to it's current extent, but it'll be an issue. True the botters would be at a certain gear level much sooner than you, but the things that really make the botters scary now, such as having 9x 1/40+ charms and 10x 17/20s, are things that they would never be able to pick up on their own. Even more so because the benefits of running multiple bots would be completely negated.

That's what I've got so far, I suspect I'll be able to come up with more.
I believe my previous statement of "it'd be like playing with an established pure character" or whatever I said exactly was in error.


So I see what you've put in there, and I figured that's what you'd end up with, the competitive advantage thing. And I guess it's valid, but I figured it would be more about recognition for the accomplishment than competition. As far as equipment advantage goes, I think you're banking too much on the system being non exploitable. Once you segregate the community there will be people trying to get in and cheat (see chickenhack) for an advantage. If you leave it as an accomplishment, then I think people will be less likely to cheat at it, because it wouldn't really put them ahead of other people. So what I'm saying is I think the competitive argument is thin (in my eyes) and it invites corruption.

I don't know if I agree with the idea that it's a good thing that all the characters basically only differ in the amount of time that's been put into them.

I guess I would simply rather find a compromise that wouldn't split the community than to simply add in another game mode. Example would be to make all items BoE and up the drop rates (ever so) slightly. But I think they've already stated they're against this. I'm actually for it because I think it would actually thin the SC economy which would prevent 'mudflation" but the outcry would be enormous, and it also has implications in the respec arena also.


Another implementation that I'd not mind that could work with the achievement system, to borrow an idea that seems common with the pk debate... just turn it into a mode when creating games instead of on character select. Once you lose the achievement, you lose the ability to create/join such games. You lose the achievement once you enter a non-pure game.

This would require game sorting features more advanced than D2's... but not much more (and likely less) than what *craft has going.

Sounds like a good compromise to me, and a fairly elegant solution as well imo, to both the pure game and pk system, the only gripe I would have with it is it would make it kind of confusing in the game select screen, unless they have a robust Bnet game search engine that only lists games you can join.

As I've said though, my primary interaction in D2 was economic, trading with my friends, helping them build item dependent characters, borrowing items to build my own. Eliminating that from the game to me is blasphemy, but on the other hand it would seem more "elite" which would draw me to it, so the only way I could cope with such a mode is if was as you described and players could both relinquish items that dropped for them for other players, but also they would have to up the drop rate ever so slightly so that getting a good (perfect) gear set for my characters wouldn't be impossible.

[oOmpie]

Sorry for not reading the entire thread before posting, but in response to the OP I just want to say that imho the desire for Pure play is simply a symptom of a duped up, hacked up game.
Don't ask Blizzard to fight the symptoms but rather have them root out the causes.

Besides that Pure play does not need a separate game mode, all it needs is a little discipline from yourself/your play group. Arguably the same could be said anout Hardcore mode, but I think that much discipline actually needs a little reinforcement from the Man :)

[5zigen]

Just thinking about this again, what if all these splits really did happen (after reading the pk thread, the most common split suggestion is to split for pvp and non pvp servers).

We would end up with:

Vanilla SC
Vanilla HC
Pure SC PvE
Pure HC PvE
HC PvP
SC PvP
Pure SC PvP
Pure HC PvP

That's 8 divisions of the game, unless you dont allow certain combinations. I'm sure we'll have more proposed game mode divisions also. I just can't think of anything personally.

I think if nothing else, it just makes the decision for most players more confusing and complicated.

[Gamekk]

Awesome idea! Since I don't like trading and I like playing the game when it's hard.

It reminds me of ladder resets, where I have 0 time to trade and I'm constantly trying to gain exp with crappy gear, it's pretty challenging but overall, it just slows you down compared to others if you don't have the good gear.

People always complain how hard the game is (too easy to 1 shot everything with nigma and level 55 Bhammer), but have they ever played a paladin up to level 93 with his best item as "lore" helm? After two days of ladder reset last year, I was the highest paladin with worst gear ever lol.

[Lyrs]

If you want to play untwinked, then play untwinked. It's a matter of personal control. Now, if you want to play with other untwinkers, form a group, make contacts and have fun that way.

As far as new modes go, a 5 hit arcade mode sounds fun. If you get hit 5 times, your character dies. You replenish hits with those red drops. Health potions replenish 1 point every 2 minute or so, but never above 3.

[Spero]

It wouldn't bother me if Blizz made a "pure" mode, as long as it didn't take very much time from their game development. I would never play it, but I can see it being refreshing having no, "hey anyone have some extra gold?" or other begging in games.

I like being able to mf and then disburse items to other characters. I think it's fun to play with more rare items and I like overpowered characters. So pure would not be for me. Wow that would really suck to find a great, rare item not suited for your character!

[Tai.]

You know I'm all for it Mousey. I would love to have a pure server where I could run CTA games all the time...

Also, HC was a bit slower because of a smaller community. This resulted in some of the top teams not being online until long after the reset, whereas SC had more total people vying for the top and checking more often for reset. CTA had 11 total people, one group of 7 and one group of 4 with only 2 of our 11 people being online within 90 minutes of the reset.