Diablo 2 was popular for its multiplayer aspects, not its single player. Yall need to learn that.

"

Asra101010 wrote:

"

PrairieTutanka wrote:

Baldurs Gate: single player, not popular

You serious?

Man I was about to say the same!

But I will add something...

SKYRIM

"

Narszosh7 wrote:

"

Asra101010 wrote:

"

PrairieTutanka wrote:

Baldurs Gate: single player, not popular

You serious?

Man I was about to say the same!

:D

Just to give my 2 cent to the OP love for Pvp.

I was playing Ultima Online back in the nineties, a Pvp-centric game. Actually Ultima has been the best Pvp experience I have ever had, it had it all: players' skill, knowledge, social iteration.
It had one big world where you could PvM but always risking to encounter some other players that could kill u.
When u died whoever was there could loot everything u had on your char and in your backpack. There were very rare and powerful items that required long time to be crafted or to drop. Using those items certainly gave u an advantage over other people not using any of those but dying would have meant risking to lose all of them because of the loot system. This was the non-plus-ultra of the concept of risk vs reward: u worked ur ass off to get your hands on an item that made ur char powerful and then you could be ganked by 5 players and loose everything while them could loot your powerful items and start using it (risking themselves to lose it) or they could just sell it on the market. Just as comparison: u could farm your Headhunter for weeks, finally getting it and then u had to choose: shall I use it because it makes me powerful? If u started using it, well immagine dying and seeing someone looting your hard earned HH.
This was the Pvp heaven.
Then the game became more popular and casuals started playing it and, of course, they started whining about being killed while PvM and loosing all their stuff.
The Software House then first created the insurance for your items, a System that allowed you to pay a few gold to make u sure to not loose any piece of gear u had on you when u died... Then they created a specular world where pvp was not allowed (Tramell world opposed to Felucca World) .
So basically a game completely balanced around Pvp made this u-turn to please casuals that wanted the game to be more PvM and casual oriented.
Of course game went down from there and now only a few unofficial servers with the original sets of rules are around with an average of 200/300 players online.
Don't even know if the official server called Osi, its still up, I guess so.

All this story just to tell to the OP that Poe is balanced around PvM. It never had a serious Pvp. You can't change the core nature of a game, its DNA, Otherwise you risk to go down just like Ultima did.
And the same thing can be said about all the people being vocal about making the game easier, the crafting easier, everything easier. Poe at it's core, in its DNA, is a grindy, hard, long time investment game. Change its core and it will lose everything, it will only be a matter of time.

It was popular because it was an amazing game, especially for its time, both single player and multiplayer experiences had something to propose and it was well done, that being said it wouldn't have lasted so long without multiplayer, that goes without saying.

It's something that is missing in PoE so far imo, there's not a real appeal to play multiplayer, apart from running a boosted party to farm even faster. There could be some multiplayer dungeons with mtxs rewards so people who don't want to run them aren't losing anything, a public tavern with mini-game is the kind of unessential thing that can add so much to a game and a point to stay logged in when you're bored to grind maps, and of course PvP but an open arena one similar to a rogue encampment in D2 and with a tight balance to avoid 1 shot and overbuffed skills could be interesting too (with a dedicated iteration for pvp for each skill to not mess up PvM). Being able to create mini mods in hideouts would be unbelievably nice too, but most likely not feasible.

Lol I didn't even have battle.net since there was only pirated versions of D2 in my country back in the day. Played some bnet later but got back to single with pluggy.

Only played single player in D2 as well.

"

PrairieTutanka wrote:

Diablo 2 was popular for battle.net

Not for single player mode.

And PoE is popular for being a great single player experience, with the option of playing multiplayer. Do you have a problem with PoE not being D2? Or is just that you think all games should be formed based on your opinions?

A LOT of single-player based games have a thriving online community. You can be social when you're playing single player too, be that through Discord, guilds or other sources.

PoE has PvP in form of races, events and the BR mode. It doesn't need to cater to your urge of smashing other people's skulls to feel better than them. You'll get that experience from better suited games. I can give you some tips on that, if you'd like.

Where did the term "PVE Andy" even come from lol? My name isn't Andy. xD

Oh and I played D2 single-player. Exclusively. Never touched multiplayer ever.

"

PrairieTutanka wrote:

The D2 to WoW transition, certainly doesn't need a graph. It's literally the same company of hype. Blizzard.

Or even Warcraft 2 players, who played D2 as well.

If your one of those who never touched WoW, than you may as well be one of those type, who are proud they haven't watched Game Of Thrones.

Most D2'ers were hyped about WoW for years prior. Their was a huge debate at the time, Everquest 2 vs WoW, before the release of either. D2 players were apart of that debate.

I’m not saying I’m proud to have not played WoW. I just didn’t play it. My experience of MMORPGs is generally negative and I didn’t see any point in paying a subscription to reinforce that feeling when I had other games to play.

The problems with your arguments is they just are not substantiated at all. I could be make wide sweeping statement similar to yours that only 1% of D3 players went to WoW, and 99% of them went because it was a Blizzard product and not because it was an MMORPG. The thing is, my statement carries just as much weight. None.

For the record, I don’t believe that to be true because I can’t substantiate it. Also I’ve watched GoT. :)

diablo 2 had an offline mode. poe does not have an offline mode, everyone playing poe is essentially 'signed into battlenet playing the multiplayer' by this definition.


so youve made no point at all. poe needs to learn that what made diablo 2 successful was the online mode, which is 100% of poe, not the offline mode which poe doesnt have... do you think maybe thats not something ggg need to learn seeing as they already fully implemented it from day 1 which was over 8 years ago? do you think the community maybe doesnt need to learn that seeing as we are all here 'signed into battle net' playing poe the same way people played the online version of diablo 2? this is what everyone has already been doing for the last 8 years since day 1 of open beta.



this is an arpg game, the most successful arpg ever made, literally millions of people play it still after 8 years. its more popular than diablo 2 was, its as popular as an arpg could ever hope to be, its redefined how popular an arpg can be. people play this game the way people who love arpgs want to play arpgs. that, for the most, is on their own or sometimes in small parties of friends. the reason 'being signed into battlenet' makes arpgs better is because it gives the items you find more potential value via the potential for trade and the brag factor in the fact you have it and wont trade it to that guy who covets it even though you could. thats what the draw of the battlenet is.







the reason pvp is shit in arpgs and other heavy multiplyer aspects are shit is the same reason mmoarpgs are shit compared to arpgs from the perspective of someone who wants an arpg instead of an mmo. you cant balance things well if you have the depth of items and builds that a good arpg provides. thats why mmos have shit, dumbed down build and item systems, because they take a back seat to being balanced for multiplayer gaming. arpgs have fairly shit multiplayer that basically amounts to co-op with your mates because theres no balance that would allow for the wider community to all play together in any meaningful way, and people play the game in such vastly different ways in terms of how fast they go, what they loot, how much time they spend on loot etc, do you spend 5 minutes between maps studying and storing your finds? do you run 5 maps in a row before you even bother vendoring anything?



my mrs has played this game since day 1, since before i even met her, when we play together and shes sitting right next to me she still drives me nuts with how bloody long she takes in town when we are levelling. like what the actual fuck are doing woman? weve been in town over 2 minutes, are you crafting a mirror tier weapon over there on day 1 of the league in act 2? like seriously, why are we stood here? wtf is going on? LETS GO, LETS FUCKING GO my brain is actually about to explode with how painful this progression speed is.

she cant play games like this with her mum, and yes her mum whos in her 60s plays rpg games, because her mum reads all the dialogue etc and it drives her mad, her brain is exploding, LETS FUCKING GO MUM WTF ARE DOING WEVE BEEN IN TOWN 7 MINUTES?!!?!?

"

Synopsis wrote:

It was popular because it was an amazing game, especially for its time, both single player and multiplayer experiences had something to propose and it was well done, that being said it wouldn't have lasted so long without multiplayer, that goes without saying.

It's something that is missing in PoE so far imo, there's not a real appeal to play multiplayer, apart from running a boosted party to farm even faster. There could be some multiplayer dungeons with mtxs rewards so people who don't want to run them aren't losing anything, a public tavern with mini-game is the kind of unessential thing that can add so much to a game and a point to stay logged in when you're bored to grind maps, and of course PvP but an open arena one similar to a rogue encampment in D2 and with a tight balance to avoid 1 shot and overbuffed skills could be interesting too (with a dedicated iteration for pvp for each skill to not mess up PvM). Being able to create mini mods in hideouts would be unbelievably nice too, but most likely not feasible.

you can run all the content together with your friends, multiplayer co-op. ask yourself if you need to put in a dungeon specifically for multiplayer and then incentivise people to play it by giving away mtx, why is that? why would you need to bribe people to play multiplayer if basically every piece of content in the game is already multiplayer and multiplayer is a great thing thats really popular and everyone wants to play?


what would a multiplayer dungeon be? so barry and his mates who all deal 1 million dps make a 4 man party and run this dungeon... what if greg who has a build that deals 10 million dps goes in there solo? you gonna tell him that basically even though his 1 build could shit on barrys whole 4 man party hes not allowed in there? if the dungeon is balanced to barrys team can have a good time stomping goblins in there then whos gonna have a good time following gerg around while he 1 shots the entire dungeon before they can do anything?

how are you gonna have tight balance for pvp when the entire point of the game is allowing so much depth and rng in the build and item systems that the fun is finding combos of things that completely break down the balance and make what you are doing essentially unfair compared to the 'normal' user experience? the point is to find something unbalanced, now you want the devs to find a way to balance their system that is intentionally unbalanced so that people who came here to play pve can play pvp?

and how much dev time do you think they should take away from making pve content, that people came here to play, in order to pump it into pvp which most people didnt come here to play and is always shit in these sort of games?

remember when they tried that before, spent a whole dev cycle on trying to make pvp a thing and no one played it, no one cared and they said years after that it was the worst decision they ever made, it had set back development of the pve game people actually wanted by a long way and was a complete waste of money?


theres a reason no arpgs have ever had good content for multiplayer beyond being able to co-op play them with your mates who are probably all at a similar level of game knowledge given they share that knowledge and are probably sharing the gear that drops.

the best multiplayer content any arpg i have seen has had is diablo 3 and it basically amounts to an pseudo infinite scaling dungeon that has separate leaderboards for speed clearing for 1 player, 2 player, 3 player etc. thats it, its adding a separate leaderboard for clearing content that is the same content single players play.





D4 plans to have pvp areas, pvp mtx, items, open world bosses... and if their arpg is shit enough that they can actually balance those things because their item and build systems are a pathetic joke then maybe people will enjoy them.