Diablo 3: let's talk about the actual game bit

[gganate]

So my impressions of Diablo 3...

It's pretty fun and addictive, despite being a really simple game. My Witch Doctor is level 16, and I've actually found it to be challenging, mostly because the WD is a class that works best with others. If I want to play single player, I have to hire two guys at least. The WD focuses on crowd control, slowing down opponents, and annoying them with pets. I like it so far.

Blizzard always makes great cutscenes and they really could do a movie. However, the voice acting is very bad. It's hammy, generic, and so far hasn't helped me care about the story at all. But I guess that's not the point of a Diablo game.

[victory]

I'm not in a mood for analyzing M:tG tournaments now, but last time I checked, blue creatureless decks used 4x Umezawa's Jitte maindeck (A legendary piece of creature equipment). This puts competence of M:tG designers under serious doubt.
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/magic_...wa%27s%20Jitte
It's not the only example by far, I just went for the low hanging fruit.

As long as they make cards with interesting and complicated effects, they necessarily screw up now and then. Then they ban or errata the offending cards, or simply wait them to automatically drop from the allowed list in the tournament formats where they are too strong, and all is well again. I'm not aware of there ever having been a dominant tournament deck that was autopilot.

[djbriandamage]

I found my first playthrough of this game quite exhilarating and I greatly enjoyed the graphics, action, dialogue, and particularly how effortless it was to completely switch my build around on demand. I then had some exciting moments with hardcore mode. I think I enjoyed it all the more because I ignored the auction house.

Now I feel like I'm done. I've seen the sights and am not particularly motivated to play in the sandbox. It was a good game but considering the hype and its pedigree I expected so much more, perhaps unfairly. What game could live up to 12 years hype? Not Diablo 3.

The server issues are intolerable, though. Disgusting. Disconnecting and lagging in a single player game is obscene. I had no problem with this concept until I actually tried it. It let me down repeatedly.

[Spider Jerusalem]

The server issues are intolerable, though. Disgusting. Disconnecting and lagging in a single player game is obscene. I had no problem with this concept until I actually tried it. It let me down repeatedly.

yup. good news is my refund just came through, so i can be done with this mess.

[Joof]

No, you don't understand. I'm criticizing the fact that, like M:tG, Diablo2 and 3 boils down to setting up your character before playing. Once you launch the game, you just follow the script and keep clicking on stuff. There is very little skill required to play the game.

Magic, 100%, doesn't work that way. There are many in-game skills that play a huge part in the outcome of each game. Deck construction might be a significant part of the game, but in game play is equally important to winning consistantly. If what you said was true, since it doesn't have deck construction, Duels of the Planeswalkers would be the worst game of all time, and each matchup would have a predetermined winner.

[sabrage]

Honestly, I didn't have any issues with lag/delay until I started my Nightmare run. I don't think it's a server issue. Try changing "hardwareclass" in the config file (My Documents/Diablo 3) from "4" to "1". It didn't completely fix it (still has issues when loading the game/a new level) but it seems to have helped a bit. I'm expecting the stuttering to get patched pretty soon; I saw a lot of other complaints while searching for a fix.

[gwathdring]

Magic, 100%, doesn't work that way. There are many in-game skills that play a huge part in the outcome of each game. Deck construction might be a significant part of the game, but in game play is equally important to winning consistantly. If what you said was true, since it doesn't have deck construction, Duels of the Planeswalkers would be the worst game of all time, and each matchup would have a predetermined winner.

As a long time Magic player, I would highly recommend that you eliminate the "100%" you have there. Perhaps this has been true in your experience, but I find it comes down to the deck far more often than the player. Especially with cards that allow you to hunt through your deck and find the creature/artifact/land/whatnot that wins you half of your games ... a lot of Magic, in certain play circles at least, can come down to building a deck that can delay death until one of your meticulously crafted super-combos comes up. I've never played in tournaments, and I'm sure it varies significantly from group to group, but as someone who has been involved in groups where player decisions post-build never seemed to make much of a difference I just don't see how you can say Magic "100%, doesn't work that way."

The reason there wasn't always a "predetermined winner" when I played Duels of the Planewalkers (and with my normal Magic group for that matter) was due to the substantial luck factor at work. The number of times I got decimated in Duels of the Planeswalkers because I wasn't allowed to gut the useless cards from my deck and simply couldn't get a hand that functioned properly while my opponent walked right in and whittled down my life-points was infuriating. I might have set up my deck and developed a deep enough understanding of how it worked so that my deck beat my opponent's 5 times out of 8 ... but the other 3 times no amount of skill in play could have helped my luck of the draw. Sure, there were some genuinely interesting and difficult card puzzles included in the game showing off what seems like a deeply tactical game ... but scenarios that feel that tense and puzzle-like come up in actual play far less often than moments when you has five such brilliant combinations to choose from and the guy across from you still can't get enough mana or critters out to pull of the one combo his or her current hand is capable of. How enjoyable this situation is typically depends on which side you sit.

I'm sure there are play groups or tournaments in which Magic feels different. But it is, at heart, a game of collection, construction, and lucky hands. That there is a variable level of at-the-table skill and that it sometimes makes a difference does not mean that said at-the-table skill is a key to the design and function of the game.

P.S. I do enjoy the game, however, as it is more successful than most CCGs at making clever deck construction matter. It is less easy to win by virtue of a bigger wallet or cheaper trick or an imbalance that escaped the author's attention than in, say, Yugioh. But these problems are present and accounted for in Magic all the same.

[mikiliniz]

Just some map in Diablo 3 are being imported from Diablo 2 expansion, just placed in different acts

[victory]

As a long time Magic player, I would highly recommend that you eliminate the "100%" you have there. Perhaps this has been true in your experience, but I find it comes down to the deck far more often than the player. Especially with cards that allow you to hunt through your deck and find the creature/artifact/land/whatnot that wins you half of your games ... a lot of Magic, in certain play circles at least, can come down to building a deck that can delay death until one of your meticulously crafted super-combos comes up. I've never played in tournaments, and I'm sure it varies significantly from group to group, but as someone who has been involved in groups where player decisions post-build never seemed to make much of a difference I just don't see how you can say Magic "100%, doesn't work that way."

There is unavoidably luck involved, but good players minimize it by building their decks to very high consistency. You can also mulligan and have to judge when to do it. In tournaments you play a series of games, which again cuts down the effect of luck, and you get to use the sideboard between games so you have more of a chance to beat weird lopsided decks which initially counter your deck.

For casual play, if you don't feel like your decisions matter, you didn't build your deck with sufficiently flexible and tricky cards. Add stuff like Cabal Therapy, Meddling Mage or Goblin Welder, and you'll absolutely see games turning around by making good decisions.

Various search cards have a tendency to make the game *more* about the player because they typically involve lots of player input and increase the consistency of the deck. You have to decide which cards would help you at exactly that point in that game, instead of relying on luck of the draw.

I'm sure there are play groups or tournaments in which Magic feels different. But it is, at heart, a game of collection, construction, and lucky hands. That there is a variable level of at-the-table skill and that it sometimes makes a difference does not mean that said at-the-table skill is a key to the design and function of the game.

Between really good players and decks it is a key to the design and function of the game. Like I said: same tournament players keep winning and placing high in tournaments despite often playing decks which many other players also play. It's not good enough to identify some of the strongest possible decks in the environment and put one of them together; you have to actually play it.

[arathain]

I'm still having lots of fun with D3, and my highest level character just hit Act III. Go me! My Demon Hunter is acquiring some skills with my favourite property: auto-targeting destructible objects (Strafe and Elemental Arrow with Ball Lightning).

Current preferred piece of badassery: Toss some Grenades into a crowd, and follow up with an arrow-spitting Vault (Action Shot). Hit Fan of Knives, then Strafe out merrily dropping Caltrops, while demons and scenery crumble around me. Big targets get a dagger to the face (Impale). Stragglers clump up on my Caltrops and get a generous helping of more Grenades.

Optimal? Don't know. Don't care. Feels darned good.

When I'm feeling like chewing things up from range it's all about the passive that gives bonus damage to slowed targets (Kill the Weak, or something), Steady Aim, which gives bonus damage if no baddies are nearby, and Rapid Fire with the Web Shot rune.

I like that the Demon Hunter is just a modern Spec-Ops in a medieval fantasy.

[b0rsuk]

There is unavoidably luck involved, but good players minimize it by building their decks to very high consistency. You can also mulligan and have to judge when to do it. In tournaments you play a series of games, which again cuts down the effect of luck, and you get to use the sideboard between games so you have more of a chance to beat weird lopsided decks which initially counter your deck.

You can also minimize the odds in a game of poker or dice. Good boxers minimize the chance of getting hit in the head, to minimize the inevitable long-term brain damage. This proves little. "Mana screw" or "luck of the draw" are phrases every english-speaking M:tG player is very familiar with. It may look okay if you start with 2 lands in hand. But if your important cards require 3 mana to play, and you keep drawing creatures, good luck. Or the reverse - you really need some useful card, but draw 2 lands in a row. There's ~11% of that happening in a 1/3 land deck.

For casual play, if you don't feel like your decisions matter, you didn't build your deck with sufficiently flexible and tricky cards. Add stuff like Cabal Therapy, Meddling Mage or Goblin Welder, and you'll absolutely see games turning around by making good decisions.

For every card like that there are ten cards like Plow Under, Stone Rain, Counterspell(further limiting the choice of your opponent), or ten cards so single-minded and cost-effective in what they do that they send the opponent scrambling for choices he wished he had. M:tG cards are designed in such way that choice is usually a costly luxury and cards with a choice are quite a bit more expensive.

And they've just added a terrible mechanic: Miracle. One of cards featuring Miracle mechanic(Temporal Mastery): "5UU, Sorcery, Take an extra turn after this one. Miracle 1U: You may cast this card for its miracle cost when you draw it if it's the first card you drew this turn). That's right ! They've added a card that gives you an extra turn for an ultra-low price if it's not in your opening hand. And this being blue magic, there are probably dozens of ways to put it on top of your library. Isolated case ? Hardly. "Terminus, 4WW, Sorcery. Put all creatures on the bottom of their owners' libraries. Miracle W", "4RR, Instant, Thunderous Wrath deals 5 damage to target creature or player. Miracle R"(5 damage lightning bolt !!!!)

Various search cards have a tendency to make the game *more* about the player because they typically involve lots of player input and increase the consistency of the deck. You have to decide which cards would help you at exactly that point in that game, instead of relying on luck of the draw.

Actually, these kinds of cards are infamous for making every game look the same. They make you need only 1 copy of each card in most cases. Tooth&Nail, ugh ! In vast majority of cases they end up searching for the same card over, over and over. Demonic Tutor and various other *tutor cards are banned in some formats. When all your opponents always play the same because it's so effective, you end up having to only build decks that can beat it. Cloudpost decks could win on turn five. There are decks that can win earlier. But it still sucks because any deck that doesn't win by turn five is right out. So "it's not OP because it can be beaten" is a very weak excuse. I've played against Tooth&Nail decks many times, and they were tournament-level (copied from tournament lists). You can do that when you play for free (gccg client).

Between really good players and decks it is a key to the design and function of the game. Like I said: same tournament players keep winning and placing high in tournaments despite often playing decks which many other players also play. It's not good enough to identify some of the strongest possible decks in the environment and put one of them together; you have to actually play it.

I think it would be easy to write a script to play M:tG with any given two decks. That's hard to prove because MTGO is the most DRM-infested game ever and Wizards are very triggerhappy and would sue the maker of such a script to death.

[gwathdring]

Between really good players and decks it is a key to the design and function of the game. Like I said: same tournament players keep winning and placing high in tournaments despite often playing decks which many other players also play. It's not good enough to identify some of the strongest possible decks in the environment and put one of them together; you have to actually play it.

I guess I just haven't experienced that. I've lost with decks I know backwards and forwards because I draw 11 lands in a row, and lost the next game despite having an incredible hand because my opponent simply had a better one. I would guess it takes more than a handful of rounds to balance out the randomness inherent in a deck as complicated as a Magic deck ... but even if that weren't the case, it is enormously frustrating to be incapable of doing anything at all because of an unlucky hand whether or not you ultimately win the bout. I prefer my intricate strategy games more consistent and balanced so that they more directly test the mettle and cunning of the player. I keep magic around for the pretty cards, the hint of strategy in the wings, and the absolutely insane things that occur when the right cards hit the table. But I gave up playing it to win a while ago. I've just never found that depth there. I'm glad that some people do, though. I like the idea of a game with such awesome components actually working out as an intricate tactical game.