I disagree. The game gives you less loot per player if you play together than it does if you play separately.
2 Likes
That is the design, it makes perfect sense. I think people have to comprehend this is a 20 year old game with a graphics overhaul.
Itâs NOT supposed to fit some modern design logic. Thats what many of us wanted to relive.
1 Like
I feel like P8 is trying to make groups less punishing instead of giving an incentive to actually form groups and walk/play togehter.
Its not good design anyway.
1 Like
Here is the disconnect.
People are playing, looking at streamers and YouTube videos trying to do all that stuff and get all this type tier stuff. A lot of them are showing videos while on single playerâŚusing things like the Jamella editor to get all that gear and then doing testing.
The game is literally designed as a co-op game but if you add more players the monsters get stronger. Thats the design, and it works VERY well. COnsider again it was designed 20 years ago where ppl played on modems. People were not creating 50 new games to bring every few minutes.
The problem is people want it allâŚthey donât realize if you could just play with P8 like single player you would not play with others. And then as a result trading would be harder if you also increased the stash, inventory, etc. as the OP suggests.
The only reasonable changes would be to single player
1 Like
I donât think it works very well at all, because as the difficulty of the monsters increases, the loot per player decreases.
1 Like
OK we all understand you are joining someone elseâs game correct?
Each player is not playing their own progressionâŚthis is the design. I donât think everyone comprehends that. Some quests are shared but essentially you are helping someone else.
What do you mean, âeach player is not playing their own progressionâ?
Thatâs literally untrue. You play your own characters. Your progress is measured by your own character leveling up and gearing up. Not others.
Suggesting personal loot and soulbound b.s.? No.
Blizz catering to casuals like you is why D3 was such a bad game and flopped so hard.
1 Like
D3 flopped?
If you actually beleive that, you can not blame accurately soul bound or high drop rates as neither existed in the early days of D3.
Yes D3 flopped and playerbase plummeted drastically after a couple weeks. The game didnt retain the Diablo fanbase for squat. It was designed for short-attention spanned kids and stoners that dont value quality and complexity.
There were many bad qualities of D3 that went backwards from D2.
Half the player cap, no pvp (dont even try arguing âbrawlâ as pvp), very bad itemization, soulbound and lack of trade/economy as a result, lack of the âdark and grittyâ theme, poor story writing & NPC dialogue, etc.
The bosses are like listening to the bad guys from the power rangers⌠lol. So cheesy.
2 Likes
D3 had 18+ million sales after tbe first year and 30+ million overall. That suggests that is was not a flash in the pan.
Also, D3 initially had free trade so your argument is just wrong. I can not believe that you di nit recall that D3 had nit one but 2 auction houses and freee trade. Items were not soul bound originally.
Bro you lack comprehension. D3 racked up sales purely from hype. My argument was that it failed to retain those players.
and no it never had free tradeâŚit had an auction house and limitations from the start.
2 Likes
How do you account for 18+ million sales after D3 was already out for at least a year.
The idea that these 18+ million sales are simply due to D2 hype ignores that D3 at that point was already out for a year and new buyers based their decision on D3 and not D2.
P.S. It had free trade at the start. You are mistaken. For example, I know for a fact tbat I traded gear among accounts.
I donât think you know what free trade means.
I donât know⌠how did Justin Bieber every get famous?
Stupid people buy stupid things.
D3 is the Justin Bieber of the diablo universe.
Hell I bought 3 copies of the damn thing myself. Still regret it. I bought it on name recognition. Itâs like Skyrim for me. Tried to enjoy that game sooo damn much. Bought several copies on multi platforms. Still a terrible game.
Sales donât = quality.
3 Likes
Ever see âRustin Hieberâ on youtube? Top kek
It is not untrue at all.
The only way someone can complete a quest is IF and only IF the game creator has not completed that quest or killed that monster.
If that is the case, you then only progress if you are in the party, if outside the party and if everyone is able to complete a quest, only the group or person who completes the quest gets credit.
By this design, it makes perfect sense. You nor I should never have my own loot because we are playing together. Sure someone can join a game and go to another act and play alone while the group sits in a different act but that prevents the other group form progressing. So againâŚits not each person progressing on their own and never has it been that way.
1 Like
Did you buy any of those copies after the first year? Are you actually claiming that you knew D3 was terrible and you still bought multiple copies after the first year?
To be fair I couldnât tell you when I bought it. Game wasnât worth remembering lol. Think I grabbed a copy fairly early on on the 360⌠then years later on ps4 and pc.
D3 flopped. Imagine being that ignorant:
And yes, first month of D3 sales probably double D2LoDâs lifetime sales. Even taking into account people abusing pay-to-win to buy multiple CD-Keys.
Also, D3 had trading and was not âsoulboundâ at its release. Also, personal loot does not mean items being âsoulboundâ. How did you manage to be so wrong in just two lines? Wow, impressive skill.
1 Like