Diablo III Wild Speculation and Rumor Mongering Abounds

[Malakili]

I think Q4 2011 is within range.  SC2 was released about 5 months after beta started, but that was with a TON of balancing done.  I think Diablo 3 is going to need significantly less tweaking.  If beta starts this month or next, a holiday release seems realistic to me.

[Mazakiel]

Which would be around the release date of SWTOR.  Color me shocked. 

[Merusk]

I'm still saying Q2 2012.

I'd agree.  I expect Beta to be this year's big Blizzcon announcement since they hyped the cash shop thing for Aug1.

[Evildrider]

Ya I'm pretty sure within 48 hours of SWTOR's launch date Blizzard will release D3's date.

[Malakili]

I'm still saying Q2 2012.

I'd agree.  I expect Beta to be this year's big Blizzcon announcement since they hyped the cash shop thing for Aug1.

There is no way they are going to wait until the end of October to announce the beta.  Maybe the release date.

[Ingmar]

How many times over the years do people have to say "there's no way Blizzard will take this long to do <X>" before we all learn to stop saying such things? 

[Malakili]

How many times over the years do people have to say "there's no way Blizzard will take this long to do <X>" before we all learn to stop saying such things? 

Well, there is a way, but I still think we will see it before calendar year's end.

[rk47]

Bah, the hype never dies and WOW is still printing money. There's no pressure to release now.
I'll wait...there's no hunger for Diablo dungeon stomping now.

[Stabs]

There are some things I don't understand.

I've seen various people stating that the always online requirement is necessary to control duping and several others saying it has no effect. I can kinda see how if each item has a unique serial number stored server side that might help control it. But I honestly don't know whether it helps or not.

I also don't understand what the advantage is of not letting people dick about with it offline on accounts that will never ever attach to the online community. Could someone explain what the technical reason for this is? Is it perhaps to discourage people from doing things with the program to discover vulnerabilities (like repeatedly crashing it)?

[ajax34i]

Accounts that "will never ever attach to online" have a tendency to change their minds, and it's easier to enforce a simple absolute rule (no dicking around!) than to have a list of what's allowed and what's not.

What I'm bewildered about is how exactly they expect to secure a non-thin client.  I mean, the whole thing is on our hard drives, right?  This is not an MMO.  Or maybe it is; maybe it asks the server for loot every time something dies.

[Stabs]

I think that must be it, Ajax, they can't possibly control duping if everything is clientside. I duped in D2 by mistake a couple of times when I crashed while muling.

[Amaron]

  Or maybe it is; maybe it asks the server for loot every time something dies.

That's how D2 worked.   Closed.net was an MMO for all intents and purposes.   The only reason it had stuff like duping was they didn't use professional practices to proof it against such things.   Same deal as UO.

[luckton]

Chart says Q4 2011.  Chart has not been wrong yet.  Have faith in chart.

[KallDrexx]

What I'm bewildered about is how exactly they expect to secure a non-thin client.  I mean, the whole thing is on our hard drives, right?  This is not an MMO.  Or maybe it is; maybe it asks the server for loot every time something dies.

It could essentially be a thin client, where you are always playing on a server.  It just hides the the MMO-ness and makes you think your playing locally.  This would probably be ideal because they could do things like GW does, where they update the game and it streams the changes to you, and gives them a lot more flexibility.

This also makes it extremely hard to crack for offline play, as you'd have to emulate the server.

[Mrbloodworth]

I'm going with this Holiday session.

[Margalis]

I also don't understand what the advantage is of not letting people dick about with it offline on accounts that will never ever attach to the online community. Could someone explain what the technical reason for this is?

There isn't a technical reason just a business one.

[LK]

What I'm bewildered about is how exactly they expect to secure a non-thin client.  I mean, the whole thing is on our hard drives, right?  This is not an MMO.  Or maybe it is; maybe it asks the server for loot every time something dies.

It could essentially be a thin client, where you are always playing on a server.  It just hides the the MMO-ness and makes you think your playing locally.  This would probably be ideal because they could do things like GW does, where they update the game and it streams the changes to you, and gives them a lot more flexibility.

This also makes it extremely hard to crack for offline play, as you'd have to emulate the server.

Character data is likely stored server side along with the B.net info. So all the content is there but the other part of it is online.

[Hawkbit]

I'm going with this Holiday session.

I'd be surprised if it launched outside of November this year.  I think they're getting ready to pull the lid off, and the beta sounds like it's only part of the first Act. 

I also think they're waiting to see when SWTOR launches, as that's their biggest direct competition.  I'll buy D3 over SWTOR at first, if they launch within a few weeks/months of each other.

[Mrbloodworth]

I'm going to guess this wont have much of a beta. Its likely been in development to long to need one if they have been using testing firms.

[kaid]

I'm going to guess this wont have much of a beta. Its likely been in development to long to need one if they have been using testing firms.

From the sounds of it the beta is just a demo kinda like the old diablo demo it contains the first 8 levels. So ya I doubt it will need or be given that much time in beta likely just enough time to stress test the battle.net integration part of it .

[El Gallo]

I'm concerned about the lack of attribute points and flexible/abuseable/fuck-upable skill trees.  One of my favorite things about DII was the fact that unexpected but viable character builds were possible - e.g. melee sorceresses and singer barbs.  Builds like that are very dependent on non-traditional attribute and skill point expenditures (and gear).   I don't see how that will be possible with the new homogenized character system.  I understand the "we don't want players who don't spend 10 hours at theamazonbasin/diabloii.net/wherever to mess up their characters and get mad" point.  But respec fixes all that.

I have no problem with the real currency AH as long as Blizzard sticks to its word and doesn't sell items directly.  No offline play doesn't affect me, but it sure sucks for people who play without reliable Internet access all the time or who like playing mods.  Seems like a heavy-handed anti-piracy measure.

The fact that they still refuse to allow aliases in the realid system is conclusive proof that everyone associated with Blizzard deserves a lonely and painful death.

[Murgos]

I'm concerned about the lack of attribute points and flexible/abuseable/fuck-upable skill trees.  One of my favorite things about DII was the fact that unexpected but viable character builds were possible - e.g. melee sorceresses and singer barbs.  Builds like that are very dependent on non-traditional attribute and skill point expenditures (and gear).   I don't see how that will be possible with the new homogenized character system.  I understand the "we don't want players who don't spend 10 hours at theamazonbasin/diabloii.net/wherever to mess up their characters and get mad" point.  But respec fixes all that.

Read the second paragraph.

Blizzard has done away with the talent trees and skill points of games past, giving players new active and passive skills every level or so. Players may only employ a set number of skills at a time, up to a maximum of six active skills and up to three passive skills. They can be swapped in and out at any time, opening up the option for experimentation and flexibility. In the beta version I played, I had the option to use just two active skills at once. After reaching level 10, I had unlocked one more active skill and the ability to use a passive skill.

Those skills can be complemented with Runes, special stones that can be socketed into a skill to boost or alter its abilities. Blizzard illustrated this by designing a "Melee Wizard," changing the fragile Wizard class—which typically keeps enemies at arm's length—into a deadly close-range build. Into the Wizard's Spectral Blade skill was socketed a rune that added a healing attribute to each hand-to-hand attack. The Diamond Skin defense skill was boosted by reflecting damage back at the Wizard's attacker. Frost Nova, a freezing area of effect skill, was runed to create a chilling cloud that damaged enemies over time. Explosive Blast, also socketed with a rune, turned a fiery explosion spell into an instant killer. Arcane Orb, normally a projectile attack, was altered by a rune that caused those projectiles to orbit the Wizard, making it even deadlier up close.

[LK]

The fact that they still refuse to allow aliases in the realid system is conclusive proof that everyone associated with Blizzard deserves a lonely and painful death.

Nothing wrong with that statement. No sir.

[Hutch]

Here's why Real ID is stupid for not allowing aliasing. Warning: anecdote ahead!

In WoW, I have a gaming buddy, whom I will refer to as Toon_Name going forward, so as to protect the innocent. Toon_Name is a girl irl, which is only pertinent in a way that will be illustrated shortly. I don't even know her RL name, I just think of her as Toon_Name.

When RealID came to WoW, I toyed with it for a brief time, before shutting it off on my account. During that brief time, I invited Toon_Name, among others, to be Real ID buddies. She agreed, and I got to learn what her boyfriend's RL name is, because that's the name on her WoW account. This is the flaw. Lots of people have a partner/spouse, or a relative, as the name on their account. So the "Real" in RealID is already out the window.

If aliasing were allowed in RealID, not only could I set a default alias for myself, but I could also have referred to Toon_Name as Toon_Name, instead of RL_Boyfriend_Name.

So between that, the security hole that was rumored to exist, and my general discomfort with having internet strangers learn my real name, I shut off RealID shortly thereafter. Here endeth the anecdote.

[luckton]

Here's why Real ID is stupid for not allowing aliasing. Warning: anecdote ahead!

In WoW, I have a gaming buddy, whom I will refer to as Toon_Name going forward, so as to protect the innocent. Toon_Name is a girl irl, which is only pertinent in a way that will be illustrated shortly. I don't even know her RL name, I just think of her as Toon_Name.

When RealID came to WoW, I toyed with it for a brief time, before shutting it off on my account. During that brief time, I invited Toon_Name, among others, to be Real ID buddies. She agreed, and I got to learn what her boyfriend's RL name is, because that's the name on her WoW account. This is the flaw. Lots of people have a partner/spouse, or a relative, as the name on their account. So the "Real" in RealID is already out the window.

If aliasing were allowed in RealID, not only could I set a default alias for myself, but I could also have referred to Toon_Name as Toon_Name, instead of RL_Boyfriend_Name.

So between that, the security hole that was rumored to exist, and my general discomfort with having internet strangers learn my real name, I shut off RealID shortly thereafter. Here endeth the anecdote.

Moral of story is moral of Facebook/social networking: Trust your friends/family, ignore everyone else.

I thought this was common knowledge?

[Hutch]

No, the moral of the story is that "RealID" would be a better tool if you could use aliases.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Here's why Real ID is stupid for not allowing aliasing. Warning: anecdote ahead!

In WoW, I have a gaming buddy, whom I will refer to as Toon_Name going forward, so as to protect the innocent. Toon_Name is a girl irl, which is only pertinent in a way that will be illustrated shortly. I don't even know her RL name, I just think of her as Toon_Name.

When RealID came to WoW, I toyed with it for a brief time, before shutting it off on my account. During that brief time, I invited Toon_Name, among others, to be Real ID buddies. She agreed, and I got to learn what her boyfriend's RL name is, because that's the name on her WoW account. This is the flaw. Lots of people have a partner/spouse, or a relative, as the name on their account. So the "Real" in RealID is already out the window.

If aliasing were allowed in RealID, not only could I set a default alias for myself, but I could also have referred to Toon_Name as Toon_Name, instead of RL_Boyfriend_Name.

So between that, the security hole that was rumored to exist, and my general discomfort with having internet strangers learn my real name, I shut off RealID shortly thereafter. Here endeth the anecdote.

Moral of the story:you've been cybering a dude.

[LK]

Here's why Real ID is stupid for not allowing aliasing. Warning: anecdote ahead!

I was more referring El Gallo's uncomplicated, immature assessment of what should become of everyone at Blizzard for actions of a section of the company, but I can see how I wasn't being very specific about that.

The preservation of anonymity online is a complicated issue rife with subjective arguments that seems to ignore the responsibility of the individual to protect themselves and take into account the effects of their actions... within reason.

[Kitsune]

If Diablo turns out to have sketchy user and online policies attached to it, I'll simply not buy it.  Torchlight 2 is coming too, and that's quite able to scratch my dungeon/loot itch.

[El Gallo]

I'm concerned about the lack of attribute points and flexible/abuseable/fuck-upable skill trees.  One of my favorite things about DII was the fact that unexpected but viable character builds were possible - e.g. melee sorceresses and singer barbs.  Builds like that are very dependent on non-traditional attribute and skill point expenditures (and gear).   I don't see how that will be possible with the new homogenized character system.  I understand the "we don't want players who don't spend 10 hours at theamazonbasin/diabloii.net/wherever to mess up their characters and get mad" point.  But respec fixes all that.

Read the second paragraph.

Thanks, that makes me feel quite a bit better. 

Here's why Real ID is stupid for not allowing aliasing. Warning: anecdote ahead!

I was more referring El Gallo's uncomplicated, immature assessment of what should become of everyone at Blizzard for actions of a section of the company, but I can see how I wasn't being very specific about that.

:serious business:

[Paelos]

The preservation of anonymity online is a complicated issue rife with subjective arguments that seems to ignore the responsibility of the individual to protect themselves and take into account the effects of their actions... within reason.

The argument tilts heavily when the only option to protect yourself is not to play. This isn't fucking WAR GAMES.

[Mrbloodworth]

I thought they dropped the whole RealID needs your real name stuff.

[Morfiend]

I thought they dropped the whole RealID needs your real name stuff.

They dropped having to use RealID on the forums. As far as I know RealID is still your name.

[Merusk]

I thought they dropped the whole RealID needs your real name stuff.

No, they dropped the RealID posts your real name to the forum.  It still uses your "Real Name" (it's actually whoever is on the billing info) to find people and when you friend/ follow them.

[Hutch]

Here's why Real ID is stupid for not allowing aliasing. Warning: anecdote ahead!

In WoW, I have a gaming buddy, whom I will refer to as Toon_Name going forward, so as to protect the innocent. Toon_Name is a girl irl, which is only pertinent in a way that will be illustrated shortly. I don't even know her RL name, I just think of her as Toon_Name.

When RealID came to WoW, I toyed with it for a brief time, before shutting it off on my account. During that brief time, I invited Toon_Name, among others, to be Real ID buddies. She agreed, and I got to learn what her boyfriend's RL name is, because that's the name on her WoW account. This is the flaw. Lots of people have a partner/spouse, or a relative, as the name on their account. So the "Real" in RealID is already out the window.

If aliasing were allowed in RealID, not only could I set a default alias for myself, but I could also have referred to Toon_Name as Toon_Name, instead of RL_Boyfriend_Name.

So between that, the security hole that was rumored to exist, and my general discomfort with having internet strangers learn my real name, I shut off RealID shortly thereafter. Here endeth the anecdote.

Moral of the story:you've been cybering a dude.

Hey man, I tried to keep you out of it by using an alias. But if you're determined to out yourself, I can't stop you. Big boy ;)