Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

i dont understand the thinking with 1.07

Discussion in 'Diablo 3 General Discussion' started by Fizoo, Feb 14, 2013. | Replies: 72 | Views: 5789

  1. Fizoo

    Fizoo IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    124
    The primary issue with d3 is battle.net 2.0. The top priority is to drastically inprove the social tools of bnet. They could leave the game in its current state and just make bnet more extrovert-friendly and make this game more successful. am i understanding this right: there are ZERO improvements to the bnet social tools in 1.07...all the changes are to d3? do they not understand its bnet 2.0 that holds d3 back? Do they not get that they need a major overhaul of bnet ASAP?
  2. konfeta

    konfeta IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    5,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Eh, if the Q&A is of any indication, they are aware it sucks. But SC2 showed absolutely glacial pace when it came to battle.net improvements (how long did it take to implement chat channels, clans, multiplayer replays viewing; and as I understand it, custom game interface still suck).

    Bringing in the X-Box guy to design Battle.net 2.0 is IMO by far the worst decision done by Blizzard in the last decade. God knows how long it will take to undo all of that. Everybody loves whining about bringing back the D2 team, but what I really want is the original Battle.net team back.
  3. Bad Ash

    Bad Ash IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,810
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    582
  4. Galtrovan

    Galtrovan IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Honestly, the last thing Blizzard did right was the Burning Crusade expansion for WoW. All the moronic "dumb-it-down, make it more accessible" decisions after WoW:BC have ruined Blizzard. Gamers want games, not this "causual, you are to stupid to make your own decisions, buy your way to success" BS.

    Blizzard used to be a games for gamers company. Now they are all about the $$$ not the quality.
  5. Ivan E

    Ivan E IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Meh, reworking the social features is going to require more development resources than they can afford to spare to work on patches. UI, by itself, requires art assets, which requires artists. Connectivity stuff requires network guys that likely don't work on D3 anymore, and won't unless they need to add more connectivity stuff. Right now all the patching is done by designers with a sprinkling of programming to make it happen.

    Then again, I also want to point out that, while this puts me at odds with a lot of folks, I don't really care. I have no desire to play with anyone else, and I find "social" or even "multiplayer" features in most games to be a turn-off. So I'm happy that they're using whatever development resources they do choose to spend on things that increase content for me, rather than whatever else they could be doing.
  6. windstriker

    windstriker IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    102
    I really believe that they're only working half-heartedly on the patches and aiming at getting out an expansion quite fast instead, before people start to forget that they even have Diablo 3 at home still. Why would the patching be as slow as it is otherwise?
    Do not anymore have any hope that they'll fix all the mayor issues with D3 before the first expansion, and I've seriously been one of the guys that believed that Blizzard always would make their games the best of the best. This game was far from as good as I had expected. I still play a lot, but I'm concentrating much more on the TV than on the game itself. Which says quite a lot tbh, you do not need much of your brain capacity for D3 :p
  7. Fizoo

    Fizoo IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    124
    I dont know what "cannot afford to spare the resources" means. The game itself is fine. They can divert ALL their resources to fixing bnet 2.0, which will result in happier players, bigger sales, and $$$$$$$. What is the resistance here?
  8. windstriker

    windstriker IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    102
    The game is just a shadow of what it could be. It has incredulous potential. Fixing the skills, increasing mob density and adding more useful and fun legendaries would make this game awesome. It is far from what it should be now.
  9. Greizer

    Greizer IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Dead on. I'm the last person on the planet you'd call 'social' - but a big draw in D2 for me was the feeling that you were part of a larger world. It's like your game was a single room in a vast house filled with similar rooms that you could enter at any minute. Or you could choose to stay in yours and not be bothered (unlike in most MMOs). It's like you're in house arrest with a blindfold in D3 atm.

    Also, yes - triple mobs and double blood in all Acts asap. Where's Jay when you need him (lol)? :p
  10. Bad Ash

    Bad Ash IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,810
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    582
    The named games of Diablo 2 were a huge aspect of replayability. I have said it before, video games don't usually last for 10+ years and the FLAWS that everyone hates in Diablo 2 HELPED make it last as long as it did. Plus seeing game names and having chat channels were a big part of it. I remember sitting in trade channels in 1.09 all the time and it was horrible, but fun! And what about FREEEEE games? Posting that you needed help and ACTUALLY GETTING IT. Scams, PK, boss runs, hell baal runs, trading games, joining baal games and killing meph for more players, TRIVIA CHAT! All of these things can add up. You can solo everything in D3 fine, be more efficient with friends, but you think D3 has 10 years of playability with the social the way it is? Eff. No.
  11. Quingu

    Quingu Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dude, when something is fun and makes a game last 10+ years, it follows these things are NOT flaws, right? XD

    The difference between D2 and D3: D2 is great and has some flaws, D3 is **** and has some great things. A really big difference. -_-
  12. Medivon

    Medivon IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    ^^this. All of it.
  13. RazeBarb

    RazeBarb IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Battle.net 2.0 isn't even visible.
    They talk about it like it's some kind of game hub like Steam, instead it is just a backend server structure.
    Bnet needs an interface that's the same for all games. If there is a feature, I should be able to access it from any game (just like the friendslist).
  14. Quingu

    Quingu Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What's really funny about BN2.0, is that it is LESS social than BN1.0. Considering success of sites like FB, this is simply ridiculous. BN2.0 could be Blizzard's own gaming FB. I don't understand their thinking at all...
  15. nurman

    nurman IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,324
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    348
    Wait, Battle.net 1.0 was any better?
  16. Zaqwert

    Zaqwert IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    BNET 2.0 has been spectacularly awful since SC2 launched and it's still terrible.

    Blizzard initially didn't want chat channels in either game PERIOD and it took the community screaming to get the half assed versions they have now adays.

    BNET 2.0 is the most cold, lifeless, sterile, and anti-social gaming platform ever. There is no sense of community. No sense of being part of a bigger world with millions of others.

    Simple things like lobbies and NAMED GAME INSTANCES are so vital to that.

    They brought in the XBox idiot and his vision was to make it a console game. You just push the big "play game" button and you play some random game. Whoopie do, who cares.
  17. Quingu

    Quingu Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I posted about this some time ago. I think that idiot from MS though that BN2.0 should be usable with mouse only (XBOX controller), without keyboard. That's why there is no game naming and no big chat lobbies. This guy is SO dumb and shallow, it's unbelievable. This is PC ****ers! We have and know how to use keyboards! -_-
  18. Dogbert

    Dogbert IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,057
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    This is a big issue but itemization takes priority over this.
  19. mr punk

    mr punk IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    well, it certainly puts you at odds with jay and the D3 team. in fact, jay would say, you're not playing the game the right way. he says the cooperative experience is the best experience and why would anyone want it any other way?
  20. Ivan E

    Ivan E IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Yeah, but that sounds like empty PR speak because, unlike most other games with tacked-on multiplayer, this game doesn't really suffer from having it forced down my throat. The only annoying aspect with regards to this is the Hellfire Rings because obtaining them is so much less efficient by oneself, but I can just pretend those don't exist and not feel like I'm being shortchanged because I don't want to play with others.

    If they really thought the cooperative experience was the best, they'd probably put more effort into making people want to do that.

Share This Page