Please respect other members. Please do not post links or information about hacking/warez/cheats.
Read the rules of these forums as we rarely warn before banning. Lost or need RSS check the forum map.
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 ~_~
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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).
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoUsE_WiZ
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoUsE_WiZ
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.
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.
Quote:
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)
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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...
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.
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)
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'.
Linear Mode
