|
harrygomm posted:there have been systemic level changes that affect leveling (density, XP for events/mobs) as well as a lot of practice. the fastest people are getting to 100 in about 16 hours so far this season, i think about 12 last season was the record. they have a pattern they follow with 3 other highly boredom-averse people and they do really boring grinding to get to 100, usually also at the expense of all the other stuff people do until 100 (gear, seasonal mechanics, uh...) S3 will probably be slower because the robot is trash and vamp powers were good.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Didn’t MS do ok with Minecraft ? I don’t honestly know in a story more akin to Diablo 3 at this point, i'll continue to say that Halo Infinite has done a great turnaround and their not-a-season upcoming mechanic seems positive there are probably differences in how that team was composed vs. how this one is composed that can explain some of it, though i've not really seen a microsoft game release and be good at launch or a GAAS game knock it out of the park and keep doing so. always seems like there's caveats bio347 posted:But also, yes. S2 made leveling significantly faster. yeah absolutely. outside of being more fun, the S2 powers were a variety of substantial power increases that took very little time to get fully online harrygomm fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:A few months ago they sent out a survey to random people, one of the questions was about a possible price point for the DLC and one of the extreme options was $100. So naturally this made its way to the clickbait circles of hell as Blizzard wanting to charge $100 for the DLC. Yea, I don’t get the problem here and I’m glad they reacted terribly to it. Anything that holds companies feet to the fire is a good thing in my book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
drat I really feel like the team behind this game cannot land on something enjoyable. The trap vaults are the antithesis of fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I do not believe any streamer has any 'loyalty' to the game they're currently streaming outside of it being easy access to a community of viewers, but maybe I'm just cynical. Yeah idk why anyone would feel loyalty to some multibillion dollar company, that's insane whether you're a streamer or a conventional employee (or, hell, consumer), but mutual beneficial self interest certainly is a thing and it genuinely is to the interest of anyone streaming D4 that the game do well and remain popular. youtube has somewhat different incentives insofar as you can still cash in somewhat on people not playing, albeit no doubt it's more profitable if the main thing you make content about is at a peak of popularity. Meanwhile streamers are just hosed if no one wants to watch the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
Lord Packinham posted:Yea, I don’t get the problem here and I’m glad they reacted terribly to it. Anything that holds companies feet to the fire is a good thing in my book. I don't think taking the most outrageous option from a survey - that included $25, $50, etc prices as well - and presenting it in bad faith as "This is what Blizzard is planning to do!" is holding anyone's feet to the fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
Jelly posted:drat I really feel like the team behind this game cannot land on something enjoyable. The trap vaults are the antithesis of fun. I think the trap vaults are kind of cool and have a different look and feel to them than the rest of the game... the first two or three times you run through them. The loop of grinding them sort of turns the experience terrible because you either memorize and master the route to trivialize it or you get incredibly frustrated having to redo it over and over when you get your buff knocked off because you forgot the path/timing. 20 different vaults you run through 2 times each would have been much more tolerable than 5 vaults you need to run through 20 times each. The fact that the rewards are for your robot that isn't useful for much except buffing and debuffing also remove any loot-based reason to grind them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
Paying2Lurk posted:I don't think taking the most outrageous option from a survey - that included $25, $50, etc prices as well - and presenting it in bad faith as "This is what Blizzard is planning to do!" is holding anyone's feet to the fire. They shouldn’t have put it in the survey then, blizzard is the one that made it. Also streamers 100% want a game to do well. At some point negativity clicks dry up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:54
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The fact that the rewards are for your robot that isn't useful for much except buffing and debuffing also remove any loot-based reason to grind them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Sane streamers want a game to be good because they might as well have fun if they're going to play it 8+ hours a day. It's undeniable that negativity farmers exist though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:The risk is when they build the assumption that everyone plays that way into the game. I have no doubt that gathering 3 or so colleagues and smashing your way through an NMD or six over your lunch is great fun. But given that there's no matchmaking, barely a clan system and grouping up is handled through 3rd party apps like discord, that's not a playstyle that the end user really experiences. I've posted about this in other threads and about different specific stuff but yeah, it's staggeringly common for devs of all disciplines to not think about how people actually play games at the places I've worked at least. Like using dev shortcuts to unlock stuff or gain resources and then not listen to feedback that that stuff feels awful to accrue "properly" or yeah, as you've said there, in multiplayer testing, assuming that because it works in an organised fashion with your buddies in the same physical room then it's gonna feel great writ large with none of that. Not universal of course, loads of places do it properly I'm sure but it is a mindset I've seen multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Orange Crush Rush posted:Heroes of the Storm is coming back, baby!!! I actually liked heroes of the storm, and you know what its be sick if they mixed in all of the microsoft IPs now. Give me a Master Chief hero, a Ford GT hero, a Fallout power armor hero
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
I wasn't gonna post this in here but seeing how it's day 3 and everybody's posting here instead of playing (except the truly blizzard pilled people) I might as well https://clips.twitch.tv/HilariousFlaccidStarlingRickroll-ILnYnKBNPeTyGrkB
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:00
|
|
|
Jelly posted:Are there any season journey requisites? There are 3 or 4 different journey requisites that are basically just "Finish X vaults," "Finish X Nightmare Vaults," "Finish an X Tier NM vault," and "Pick up X items from vaults," but you don't technically need to do any vaults to finish the season the journey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:00
|
|
|
Lord Packinham posted:They shouldn’t have put it in the survey then, blizzard is the one that made it. Also streamers 100% want a game to do well. At some point negativity clicks dry up. Putting a range of options, including outrageous ones, in a product survey is like, mundane business bullshit. Not some insidious, secret plot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
probably hit weird cuz who can't see blizzard charging $100 for an expac if they thought that it would make them more money than pricing it at $50 or something. for blizz the outrageous option would have to be like $1000 or something actually ridiculous
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
Paying2Lurk posted:Putting a range of options, including outrageous ones, in a product survey is like, mundane business bullshit. Not some insidious, secret plot. Is it extreme when we pay 70$ for games and will probably pay 70$ for said expansion with a 100$ turbo premium option?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:09
|
|
|
I still don't know why this game doesn't have a PTR. So many of the issues could have been addressed there instead of at release. It doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
Half y'all paid $90 for this one. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
there really should be some kind of wandering boss type mobs all the time going forward. at least something like the abom or helltide guy, but the bloodseekers aping the butcher gimmick was fine too. something to add unknown difficulty at unanticipated times helpsJelly posted:Are there any season journey requisites? just doing the seasonal quest until you get to that point, nothing locked behind the abstracted "get season pass to level 30" going forward any more Tonetta posted:I wasn't gonna post this in here but seeing how it's day 3 and everybody's posting here instead of playing (except the truly blizzard pilled people) its me Doomykins posted:Half y'all paid $90 for this one. its me... my battle.net bucks from D3/WoW cash out are starting to run low now. not sure how invested i'll be once i have to spend non-scrip to get the BP/Xpack/whatever harrygomm fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Jan 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
Lord Packinham posted:Is it extreme when we pay 70$ for games and will probably pay 70$ for said expansion with a 100$ turbo premium option? Super Nintendo games cost about $129 each when adjusted for inflation in the early 90's. Video games have actually gotten cheaper on average over the last 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
Tonetta posted:I wasn't gonna post this in here but seeing how it's day 3 and everybody's posting here instead of playing (except the truly blizzard pilled people) I might as well lol I'm excited for the emergency campfire https://x.com/JoeShely/status/1750292992559305194?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:15
|
|
|
Lord Packinham posted:Is it extreme when we pay 70$ for games and will probably pay 70$ for said expansion with a 100$ turbo premium option? No. And that's not what the original argument was about anyway, not some general "Video game prices BAD" bs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Super Nintendo games cost about $129 each when adjusted for inflation in the early 90's. Yea, but this is a false equivalency as the audience for games has grown exponentially and there aren’t physical costs anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Super Nintendo games cost about $129 each when adjusted for inflation in the early 90's. They also have like 30x the audience, and the overhead of shipping out physical copies of the games are an afterthought these days. This game also has been on 50% off prices for like half the time it's been out so it's hard to pretend like it's a $129 valued product or that the expansion will be a product that will be worth the retail sticker (base expansion ~$44.99)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
Lord Packinham posted:Yea, but this is a false equivalency as the audience for games has grown exponentially and there aren’t physical costs anymore. Development costs have also ballooned since 1992 and video game prices didn't rise for about 20 years. Studios are absolutely making more money because of the much larger audience, but from the consumer perspective video games have had the lowest price increases of any major form of entertainment for the past few decades. The problem is with bad games, but the concept of a $60 game isn't that wild from a value perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
Ultimately demand drives prices and consumers have wisely decided that video games are worthless
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:22
|
|
|
Actually, I take it all back. The actual craziest thing about all of this is that this is the sort of stuff that a PTR catches. The sort of stuff that a PTR has caught for D3. I cannot imagine the cost of firing up a test server is more than that of having to pull emergency overtime to repair your game every time you launch a patch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:27
|
|
|
Tonetta posted:I wasn't gonna post this in here but seeing how it's day 3 and everybody's posting here instead of playing (except the truly blizzard pilled people) I might as well friend, it's almost February it's time to take down the Christmas Tree
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Super Nintendo games cost about $129 each when adjusted for inflation in the early 90's. A Link to the Past sold ~4.6mil, and if we use inflation math that nets to about $600mil in 2024 dollars. A significant portion of that went to the physical / retailer costs (and if this were a non-Nintendo game, licensing) Breath of the Wild sold ~31.15mil, netting ~$1,690mil. I don't think we know how many of those were digital copies, but maybe... 30%? 40%? That's essentially pure profit, unlike the expected 30-70% cut from the 90s Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Development costs have also ballooned since 1992 and video game prices didn't rise for about 20 years. Yes, but which costs specifically? Because if you view budget line items you'll see that the costs that have ballooned the most are marketing, overall operating costs, aka "we own an office in San Francisco and that's very expensive", and of course c-suite salaries. Dev salaries have actually been trending downward for quite a few years now due to a surplus of devs and the culture of crunch keeping demand lower than it should be And it's wrong to say game prices didn't rise, they've just risen in different ways. DLC for one, and everything that has followed it from battle passes to worse. Monthly subscriptions are another. There's also plenty of 'secret' increases, like when we switched from physical to digital but kept the $60 price point even though companies were saving, at minimum, 30-50% of physical and retailer costs. anyway. i'm just a casual D4 guy and I don't mean to just post an "um actually" out of nowhere, but companies like Blizzard are definitely exploiting the general ignorance people have of the industry to rake in as much cash as possible, and that survey feels like a "what can we reasonably get away with?" to me
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:43
|
|
|
WarpDogs posted:A Link to the Past sold ~4.6mil, and if we use inflation math that nets to about $600mil in 2024 dollars. A significant portion of that went to the physical / retailer costs (and if this were a non-Nintendo game, licensing) I was going to say, the goal of D4 wasn’t to be a good game, although that helps a lot. The goal is to create a bunch of addicts who will buy cosmetics and battle passes. The 70$ almost doesn’t matter from the initial cost
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
WarpDogs posted:There's also plenty of 'secret' increases, like when we switched from physical to digital but kept the $60 price point even though companies were saving, at minimum, 30-50% of physical and retailer costs. Right, but those are costs that are being reabsorbed to the developer by removing them from the retailers or logistics chains. Those aren't actual price increases for the consumers. Nobody is saying they aren't making more profit on most games. Just that the direct cost for the consumer has risen significantly slower than basically any other form of entertainment (movies, books, live music, sports, etc.) over the last 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
The fact that there's still no PTR, or even one announced, is kinda baffling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
Paying2Lurk posted:The fact that there's still no PTR, or even one announced, is kinda baffling. They don't do any PTR regardless
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 20:58
|
|
|
How would they even fit a PTR feedback loop into what we know of their development cycle?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 21:01
|
|
|
The PTRs for Diablo 3 were almost all for finding game breaking bugs rather than balance issues. World of Warcraft is the only game that used to use a PTR for balancing purposes, but I think even they don't do it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 21:02
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:How would they even fit a PTR feedback loop into what we know of their development cycle? *blizzardishly* swim time is OVER -- "Cannonballlllll!!!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
anyone seen what the map pin improvements mentioned in the patch notes actually meant? all the ways and places that they've been broken since launch continue to be broken now also i don't know who needs to be told this, but you can't just take a melee only mob with a powerful windup attack that is otherwise untelegraphed (like with flashing, colors, etc.) and move it to a ranged attack that is also direct damage instead of a DoT i know it won't matter by end game, but for leveling a HC guy, the robo scorpions are now the single deadliest mob. not for because of any additional, well thought out challenge, just bad fundamental design reasons
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
Considering the current season didn't survive 2 days of high end player scrutiny or casual player game feel they would definitely benefit from even a 1-2 week long PTR cycle on the 2nd month of a season to preview the next one. Give themselves 2-4 weeks to push number changes and alter reward structure, some of the most pressing problems with S3. Then again they still haven't put glyph xp on all activities yet. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The PTRs for Diablo 3 were almost all for finding game breaking bugs rather than balance issues. D3 has frequently used the PTR to make balance adjustments, they leaned on them heavily to tune all the set reworks and it almost always produced a more positive result than if they just threw it out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 21:20
|
|
