Is Blizzard's Dev. Team Torn on D3?

[Bad Ash]

Hey guys

I was just wondering if you all thought the Dev. team is torn for Diablo 3. I keep thinking this because we are hearing so many different answers for a lot of questions. heres an example from an IGN interview with Rob Pardo

"The game is playable for the first time at Blizzcon, and it's playable in co-op with up to four players. When asked about what the upper limit will be for co-op play, he said that the final number is up in the air but they're currently looking at eight. "We're a little bit worried that if you go up to too many players that you're not really going to be playing together anymore. We want to make sure it's a great co-op experience where you really play with the people you're with, so we've just got to experiment and figure out what the optimal number is."

Really? Cause didnt Jay Wilson say 4 people max to game?

Also there was different answers in terms of waypoints, and townportals?

Is this just really bad communication between all of these people, or do you think there is inside turmoil?

[visom]

I think it's probably disagreements.

Jay Wilson might be the big cheese of the D3 team but all the other team members have their say, so it's common to find many disagreements.

As for co-op, I prefer 8 as well. Anymore than that will make it look like you're doing a clan raid on WoW.
Reason for 8 is because generally, you'll need 3 melees, 2 ranges, 1 support and you'll still have 2 slots left incase you're short on anyone of the groups or just for free choice. But I don't think the groupings are necessary, since the teamwork system isn't that great in D2.

[Matora]

I found some teamwork until about Clvl 35ish and even less teamwork as you progressed (in open public games) There was almost never any teamwork in Hell unless we were lvl 70ish doing chaos runs. It was mainly 2 peeps up front smashing (Hammerdin being 1) and everyone else following their crosses on the map.

[Kijya]

In diablo 2 you seldom really see 8 player parties working together at 100% activity from all members. I say 4 is the better number if you're looking to have all work and no leechers, in pvm.

[Apocalypse]

i do not believe the team is torn, my opinion is this is more a communcation problem. now i have never made a game before so i could be wrong but in my company when we are developing a new product it goes through a ton of revs and not everyone is kept up to date with the current rev. this could be what is going on with the bliz devs.

then you get devs with a looser tongue and devs who give the most basic answers as to get you away from the question. i do believe that some people disagree with some ideas but i do not think this is why we get different answers

[Zeek]

In diablo 2 you seldom really see 8 player parties working together at 100% activity from all members. I say 4 is the better number if you're looking to have all work and no leechers, in pvm.
I agree. Though when you did have 8 it was almost unfair to the monsters. You couldn't even get enough of them on the screen to put up a fight. Back before baal bots if you got in a baal walking game where everyone participated it was just like a big wall of monster death. That alone makes me think 8 is too much.

[Sein Schatten]

i do not believe the team is torn, my opinion is this is more a communcation problem. now i have never made a game before so i could be wrong but in my company when we are developing a new product it goes through a ton of revs and not everyone is kept up to date with the current rev. this could be what is going on with the bliz devs.

then you get devs with a looser tongue and devs who give the most basic answers as to get you away from the question. i do believe that some people disagree with some ideas but i do not think this is why we get different answers

Yup. Think so, too. They are currently experimenting with the numbers so that is why we get different answers. :coffee:

[Bad Ash]

Yeah but its not like its low level Dev's....its Jay Wilson and Rob Pardo. Those are like THE two big wigs. Thats why I feel like its suspicious and its defintely more than one thing...

[MagisterMan]

It is a good thing that everybody on the dev team don't think the same.

[erics]

It's not a good thing to release product information that isn't correct.

I'm guessing that one of them just wasn't kept up to speed. When the game comes out it's possible/probable that they were both wrong in the end. Not that big of a deal in my opinion.

[Akse]

I'd like to see a game capped at around 10 players but parties capped at 5. This way the party size would be optimal but the game wouldn't feel like a private game since there would be other players that might want to solo around some areas or form another 2-5 member parties.

To make it work, the game shouldn't have 1 ultimate end area. It should have several end game areas where at least 2 parties could easily play without competing on the same monsters.

[Sein Schatten]

To make it work, the game shouldn't have 1 ultimate end area. It should have several end game areas where at least 2 parties could easily play without competing on the same monsters.

Wholeheartly agree. The game needs more than 2,3 areas to have a lot of variety. I would go even so far and say a whole act or two for endgame. :thumbup:

[poonagi]

It's not a good thing to release product information that isn't correct.

I'm guessing that one of them just wasn't kept up to speed. When the game comes out it's possible/probable that they were both wrong in the end. Not that big of a deal in my opinion.

i wouldn't really call what they're saying a "release of product information"... they were asked questions that don't have definitive answers yet. if anything i would call it speculation on their part more than anything.

overall i would just say to everybody... have patience. they will make the right decision. :D