29/03/2013 - 14:41ч. - Автор: vaskobgn
Travis Day on Endless Dungeons Travis Day posted about Blizzard's thoughts on Endless Dungeons. Ultimately they want players to have choice when it comes to "what to do".
Replayability and ideas like Endless Dungeons come up a lot around the office. We definitely have plans to expand the game in these areas. Adding more monster power levels is also something that we have discussed. I personally love the idea of an endless dungeon, don't take that as a quote that I promised we are adding them though! At the heart of that idea is something really compelling, wave events, endless dungeons, hold out missions etc. Standing as the lone hero, or one of a party of heroes, against an onslaught of demons really sells the fantasy of Diablo, it's just a matter of taking the seed of that idea and iterating on it to a point where it feels like it fits into the game as a piece and not just "the only thing to do". I do hope that down the road we can find some way to make that idea a part of the content options players have at their disposal. I've said one numerous occasions, in a perfect world, when a player sits down at their computer for the evening to play the Diablo the question I want them to say to themselves is "What do I feel like doing tonight?" not "Ok time to run Act 3 again".
More Changes to Come With 1.0.8 Not everything has been announced yet!
We’re still hard at work on patch 1.0.8, so we haven’t yet released the patch notes for it. I can tell you, though, that there are definitely more changes currently planned for the patch than monster density alone. Once the patch is up on the PTR, we encourage you to try it out and give us your feedback. While it’s true that playing on the PTR won’t benefit your regular characters directly through gear upgrades and the like, the time you spend on the PTR is still extremely valuable. Taking part in the PTR will give you a hands-on glimpse into the latest changes and allow you the opportunity to give us your informed feedback concerning the patch and helps us address bugs that might try to rear their little antennaed heads. On the whole, participating in the PTR allows us to ensure that the patch we release is as polished as possible. :)
Why Coop is Limited to 4 Players Lylirra gave us a few reasons today on why the limit of players in coop mode is 4.
Hey guys! I chatted with Wyatt about this topic on your behalf and, while he's currently at GDC giving a sweet talk about refining game systems in Diablo III (including health recovery, combat controls, and character skills), he shared some information with me that I wanted to pass on.
we should be able to at least have parties of 5 instead of 4 that would at least be a good thing....
While a larger party size may sound appealing in concept (and even in practice for other games), there are a number of factors which contributed to our belief that four players is really the ideal party size for 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: Making them to be weaker, and tuned around multiplayer (which is a similar approach to what World of Warcraft uses) Or reducing the effect buffs have on other players (which is what Diablo II wound up having to do later) We don’t like the idea of these sorts of nerfs, which is part of the combined reason why we aren't eager to change 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. Whenever you add another person to a group, though, 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. 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 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. :)
Plus it was stated before that too many players would clutter the screen.
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
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 console version. I get it. And if that's really what you want to believe in your (sin) heart of hearts, then we'll respect that -- because you're a human being and deserve it, even if we don't see eye-to-eye. <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.
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 protected] Moderation is ultimately handled by a separate team, but we'll make sure your feedback gets to the right place.