Development Info Diablo III item drops will encourage trading

[DarkUnderlord]

Tags: Diablo III

Gamebanshee have <a href="http://gamebanshee.com/news/static/EkuAyypEEZxyakjZkc.php">done a round up of Diablo 3 forum tidbits</a>. Here's some:
<br>
<blockquote>We don't want to bias the drop system into only giving you items you want or can use, it would be a trading and economic killer. We want to encourage trading and encourage people to see worth in items even if they can't use them - give them to friends, use them for other characters, sell them, trade them, etc.
<br>
<br>
Along those lines but somewhat off-topic we do now have some restrictions on weapon types usable by each class. It's been part of the game for a while now. Allowing every class to use every weapon type was actually going to require a huge amount of time and effort and it would have meant cutting out or cutting into other features. We evaluated really how often people would want to have their class holding a weapon type that (traditionally) contradicted their class-style versus that work going in to other features - specifically having a lot more skills and a lot more skill-rune effects. We made the obvious choice which is making sure there are a ton of awesome skills and rune effects to choose from.
<br>
<br>
Because I can see the conclusions being jumped to RIGHT NOW in my old cranium - let me state that weapon types do not dictate stats. At least not wholly (barbarians can't use staves so there's no point in allowing fury related stats on them). We understand that the game is about variation, customization, and experimentation in class builds. We're not World of Warcraft, we're not looking to make weapon stats "optimal" for the types and classes that will use them. Which is to say, we're not going to put specific stats in specific amounts on each weapon of a specific type because we're making assumptions about what each class wants out of their stats. We want variation, and experimentation, and all that good stuff. These restrictions don't affect those goals, it really just means you probably won't see a wizard lugging around a two-handed axe. Kind of a bummer, but then think about what it affords us to work on with more and better looking skills, a more robust rune-skill system, etc. We want to spend our time and effort on what makes sense to making the game better.</blockquote>
<br>
Making every one able to use everything is hard but limiting it is easier? A two-handed Axe wielding wizard would've been fun.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

GUYS WIZARDS CAN'T USE AXES ANY MORE BECAUSE WE'RE USING THAT TIME TO MAKE A BETTER GAME!!!!!!!! IMAGINE WHAT DIABLO 2 WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE IF SPELLCASTERS COULDN'T USE AXES! IT WAS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY! HAVING A SIMPLE "REQUIRES 70 STRENGTH" ON AN AXE ISN'T ENOUGH OF A DETERRENT BECAUSE WHAT IF SOMEONE SPENT ENOUGH STAT POINTS ON THEIR SORC TO GET TO USE THAT AXE!?!??!? WE'RE NOT MAKING WEAPONS OPTIMAL FOR CERTAIN CLASSES BUT WIZARDS USING AXES BUT WIZARDS CAN'T USE AXES.
ALSO BATTLE.NET IS BETTER THAN LAN PLAY AND 2+2=5 BLIZZARD OUT

 

[Jaesun]

Diablo III is an RPG?

 

[racofer]

Goodbye creative character building, the one thing I appreciated the most in D2.

So it seems every gaming company is now defunct and ready to be forgotten, or have I forgotten someone?

 

[deuxhero]

Really, 5 people played melee enchantresses in d2.

 

[Kron]

Yeah, we like, encourage experimentation and customization guys, so that's why we decided potions and manual skill point assignement really doesn't fit what we think is the spirit of Diablo 3.

Blizzard is dead to me. And Starcraft 2 is bound to be some half-assed piece of shit.

 

[Andhaira]

I'm really looking forward to diablo 3. I intend to play it first with a sorceress.

 

[Secretninja]

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

 

[Andhaira]

I meant I'll play as the wizard first.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

"Location: Orgrimmar"
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[entertainer]

rpgcodex covering diablo3 news now?

 

[Avu]

The codex is covering shooters like Mass Effect and Fallout 3 why not Diablo 3?

 

[Kingston]

This coupled with automatically allocated stats (you don't get a say in where your stats go) has effectively killed D3 for me. Goddammit, Blizzard.

 

[Occasionally Fatal]

oh noes how will i gimp my builds naow

 

[Carceri]

Goodbye creative character building, the one thing I appreciated the most in D2.

So it seems every gaming company is now defunct and ready to be forgotten, or have I forgotten someone?

Yeah, this sums it up pretty well.

Barbarians using javelins, sorcs with bows and swords, necros with flails or axes, assassins with flails, wtf aren't claws supposed to be their weapon class? What's going on here? Poor kids they're confused, don't know what to use, how much strength, but what about dexterity? Zerker axe vs p.blade: which is better and why? It tends to be so frustrating, so let's add "variation, and experimentation, and all that good stuff."

 

[Morbus]

I think it's probably a wise decision. And I don't think anyone disagrees with me here.

 

[Redlands]

Allowing every class to use every weapon type was actually going to require a huge amount of time and effort and it would have meant cutting out or cutting into other features.

Can someone please explain to me why this is so?

I mean, I assume it's not a programming issue, because adding extra conditional checks would seem to make things more difficult, rather than less.

I can't see how it's a graphics issue, unless they're adding in animations for every character-weapon combination because the bodies are going to be too dissimilar, but how many weapon types are they going to have that it's going to be that much of an effort. Couldn't they sort of add the weapons to the character animations using some kind of algorithm?

 

[Tuonela]

Allowing every class to use every weapon type was actually going to require a huge amount of time and effort and it would have meant cutting out or cutting into other features.

Can someone please explain to me why this is so?

I mean, I assume it's not a programming issue, because adding extra conditional checks would seem to make things more difficult, rather than less.

I can't see how it's a graphics issue, unless they're adding in animations for every character-weapon combination because the bodies are going to be too dissimilar, but how many weapon types are they going to have that it's going to be that much of an effort. Couldn't they sort of add the weapons to the character animations using some kind of algorithm?

It's probably the animation issue, every weapon for every character and every special skill on top of that. The tech is too far from being able to procedurally create good animations. When we can create content like that, we get fully reactive and adaptive games, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Lurkar]

Oh noes, the zero people in existance who used two handed axes with their sorceress are shit out of luck.

You can whine all you want about BUT BUT BUT PLAYER CHOICES, except that those choices don't mean dick if nobody chooses them.

As for the stats thing, that wasn't character customization, that was just a giant fucking trap that you fell in if you didn't know the game well enough. There weren't multiple awesome builds with varrying degrees of what stat goes where for each class; every class had the same build stat-wise, and deviating from it made your character worthless and shitty. So oh god, I guess I have to complain about Blizzard removing a stupid new player trap from the game.

 

[Raapys]

Oh noes, the zero people in existance who used two handed axes with their sorceress are shit out of luck.

You can whine all you want about BUT BUT BUT PLAYER CHOICES, except that those choices don't mean dick if nobody chooses them.

As for the stats thing, that wasn't character customization, that was just a giant fucking trap that you fell in if you didn't know the game well enough. There weren't multiple awesome builds with varrying degrees of what stat goes where for each class; every class had the same build stat-wise, and deviating from it made your character worthless and shitty. So oh god, I guess I have to complain about Blizzard removing a stupid new player trap from the game.

Yah, it's alot better to just remove anything that isn't working so well rather than try to improve it.

 

[Kraszu]

Yah, it's alot better to just remove anything that isn't working so well rather than try to improve it.

They choose to focus on diferent things like runes, and skill trees that offer more variety.

 

[Stereotypical Villain]

Goodbye creative character building, the one thing I appreciated the most in D2.

 

[Kingston]

As for the stats thing, that wasn't character customization, that was just a giant fucking trap that you fell in if you didn't know the game well enough. There weren't multiple awesome builds with varrying degrees of what stat goes where for each class; every class had the same build stat-wise, and deviating from it made your character worthless and shitty. So oh god, I guess I have to complain about Blizzard removing a stupid new player trap from the game.

They could've improved the system rather than tossing it away. There were some decisions, such as whether to put points in dex to build up blocking or on vit to gain more health. In hardcore mode there was the dilemma of keeping your vit as high as possible while still being able to equip good gear.

The fact is, the entire game is now more item-based than ever before, which bases your character's success more on random chance. You can't offset weaknesses in your gear by putting points into certain stats.

Less stats is for faggots.

 

[NOVD]

I'd assume it's an animation issue. As long as it's not "wizards can only use daggers and staves", it's probably fine.

 

[aron searle]

Building a decent trade system encourages trading.