Diablo III Catch-All

ibdoomed wrote:
Tamren wrote:
ibdoomed wrote:

Side note. There are reports that peak connections during open beta only hit 300k... that's very disheartening...

That means jack nothing. Aside from the fact that is easily twenty times the size of most MMO populations. A lot of people are like me, just waiting for release.

Most MMO populations are only 15,000 players? Ok.

I sure hope you are right and there's not going to be near that many people buying D3. I thought it was more popular. Amalur sold 300k didn't it?

I'm still not going to try playing at midnight, I'll wait til 6am.

He was referring to concurrent users at the sametime being around 300k, I have no doubt Diablo will sell a couple million in the first couple days alone.

Sonicator wrote:

You'd have to break down the active skills into the categories: you can't have the poison dart in the RMB slot, for example.

I haven't tried it myself, but apparently, you can put any skill in any slot if you turn on Elective Mode in the options.

Yes you can and be sure to also turn on advanced tooltips.

Bashiok was quoted as saying there is a run lock key so that if you have a skill equipped in lmb but you want to run instead of cast, with this key down it won't matter if you left click on the ground or a monster, you will move to that spot. I love playing ranged characters so this will be a big help as I always am finding myself attacking when I want to be running in packed 4 player games.

Lothar wrote:
ibdoomed wrote:
Tamren wrote:
ibdoomed wrote:

Side note. There are reports that peak connections during open beta only hit 300k... that's very disheartening...

That means jack nothing. Aside from the fact that is easily twenty times the size of most MMO populations. A lot of people are like me, just waiting for release.

Most MMO populations are only 15,000 players? Ok.

I sure hope you are right and there's not going to be near that many people buying D3. I thought it was more popular. Amalur sold 300k didn't it?

I'm still not going to try playing at midnight, I'll wait til 6am.

He was referring to concurrent users at the sametime being around 300k, I have no doubt Diablo will sell a couple million in the first couple days alone.

Let's play the multi-quote game. Which was I actually referring to? -- I meant to respond the the 15k not the 300k.

ibdoomed wrote:
Tamren wrote:
ibdoomed wrote:

Side note. There are reports that peak connections during open beta only hit 300k... that's very disheartening...

That means jack nothing. Aside from the fact that is easily twenty times the size of most MMO populations. A lot of people are like me, just waiting for release.

Most MMO populations are only 15,000 players? Ok.

I sure hope you are right and there's not going to be near that many people buying D3. I thought it was more popular. Amalur sold 300k didn't it?

I'm still not going to try playing at midnight, I'll wait til 6am.

I assume you are trolling...

concurrent users on most MMOG's that are "sharded" in nature (other than EVE) rarely reach anywhere close to 300,000.. let alone 30,000

I have no idea how the D3 open beta was implemented from a back office perspective but its safe to say that Blizzard will handle concurrency for launch in a different manner than Open Beta... and yes I still don't think it will be enough.

I fully expect lots of teeth gnashing and angry internet men when there are all sorts of login problems come May 15th.

Katy wrote:
Sonicator wrote:

You'd have to break down the active skills into the categories: you can't have the poison dart in the RMB slot, for example.

I haven't tried it myself, but apparently, you can put any skill in any slot if you turn on Elective Mode in the options.

Huh, that's a smart move. Good way of balancing accessibility and customisability.

Serengeti wrote:
emyln wrote:

I disagree. The trillion number they tout as the number of builds is bunk or way too large to track.

Well, mathematically speaking it's easy to figure out. The following is based off of the number of skills from the Witch Doctor wiki.

22 active skills x 5 runes each x 6 slots = (22x5)x(21x5)x(20x5)x(19x5)x(18x5)x(17x5)x(16x5)
17 passive skills x 3 passive slots = 17x16x15

So, to get the total number of possible builds, the formula is ((22x5)x(21x5)x(20x5)x(19x5)x(18x5)x(17x5)x(16x5))x(17x16x15) or roughly 273,978,936,000,000,000 possible builds for the witch doctor alone.

Hmm, that seems like a lot. Is my math wrong? I admit, I've had a few drinks.

Edit: That can't be right, someone fix my maths!

As Sonicator said, the active skills are locked to each slot. You can't put your "1" skills into the "3" slot, for example. So for each of those six active slots there aren't 22 active skills - the breakdown is actually 4/4/4/3/4/3. See Blizzard's actual Witch Doctor game guide, here.

Ergo: ((4*5)^4) * ((3*5)^2) = 20^4 * 15^2 = 160,000 * 225 = 36 million possibilities for the 6 active skills (LMB, RMB, 1, 2, 3, and 4).

There are 15 passives and 3 slots. So the number of possibilities there is 15 choose 3, or (15*14*13)/(3*2*1) = 455.

Therefore, the total number of possibilities is 455 * 36 million = 16,380,000,000.

The number of skills per slot isn't uniform across characters, either, so some have more or less combinations than others. I don't think it'll quite reach a trillion - unless they're counting not using a rune or leaving a passive slot empty as a "valid" choice - but there's certainly no dearth of options available.

Edit: Oh, I didn't know about Elective Mode. Well, all that work for nothing, I guess. It's a really big number.

emyln wrote:

So in that light, there are easily tens of dozens of potentially good builds, if I had to guess I would say at least 50-100 builds per class that will gain popularity. Will that number thin down when we finally get to inferno?

You did go on to my second paragraph where I said there might be 100's of good builds? Which seems to be what you are saying too. D3 surely will have more "good" builds than D2 had, if for no other reason, because Diablo 2 had so few.
My point just is, there wont be millions of good builds which a lot of people seem to claim. And if there really were, it would be bad for the game (as Inferno would be too easy).

I just wish some classes had a viable melee build. I want my demon hunter to be able to use daggers or swords, dammit!

Keldar wrote:

As Sonicator said, the active skills are locked to each slot. You can't put your "1" skills into the "3" slot, for example. So for each of those six active slots there aren't 22 active skills - the breakdown is actually 4/4/4/3/4/3.

Sure you can. The only abilities you cant place on LBM and RMB are skills which aren't directly target based - as that would give quite a few problems when moving around.

You just have to enable Elective mode in the options. Blizzard decided to hide an essential setting deep in there, which everyone who plays beyond Normal will probably want to activate. However we as players are apparently stupid and can't handle such complex "choices" ourselves. Or something like that.
Edit: And then it have been said like 5 times already. Oh well.

Personally I'm going to try this one out: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/calculator/demon-hunter#cYTVkj!Yhc!baZbaY
Which have 3 skills from "Hunting" and none from "Primary" for example.

Xeknos wrote:

I just wish some classes had a viable melee build. I want my demon hunter to be able to use daggers or swords, dammit!

I want a whip for the demon hunter!

*puts on Reckoning fanboy hat*

Reckoning sold 400,000 in 2 months in the US only, not counting digital sales.
vgchartz showed it over a million worldwide last month.

*doffs Reckoning fanboy hat*

Edit: Only fifteen passives, not seventeen. Fixed.
Edit: Dammit, and only six skill slots. Fixed

With elective mode, the number of possibilities is still incorrect, because you're counting the number of possible orders of skills (permutations), and you have to throw that out to get the number of sets of skills without order (combinations).

So there are 22!/16! possible permutations of skills, and 22!/16!/6! possible combinations of skills, and 5 independent runes for each is 5^7*22!/16!/6! skill+rune combinations, and 15!/12!/3! passive combinations, for a total of 5^6 * 22!/16!/6! * 15!/12!/3! = 5^6 * 22*21*20*19*18*17 / (6*5*4*3*2) * (15*14*13) / (3*2) = 5^6 * 53721360 / 720 * 2730 / 6 = 15625 * 74613 * 455 = 555419921875.

So, in elective mode that's 555,419,921,875 possible skill+rune+passive combinations. Around half a trillion possible combinations of abilities per class.

Of course, not all of those will be reasonable. Some will lack needed defenses at harder levels. Some will lack needed offenses. etc. But that's the raw number of possibilities you're choosing between in an individual class. Not counting gear.

Edit: Without elective mode, assuming the 4/4/4/3/4/3 thing is right, you have:

5^6 * 4*4*4*3*4*3 * 17!/14!/3! = 15625 * 2304 * 455 = 16380000000

16,380,000,000, or ~16 billion possible skill+rune+passive combinations without elective mode. That's likely to be closer to the number of possible effective combinations. But not all of the combinations of skills that fit the "recipe" that non-elective mode puts you in will work, and not all of the combinations of skills outside it won't.

fangblackbone wrote:

Bashiok was quoted as saying there is a run lock key so that if you have a skill equipped in lmb but you want to run instead of cast, with this key down it won't matter if you left click on the ground or a monster, you will move to that spot. I love playing ranged characters so this will be a big help as I always am finding myself attacking when I want to be running in packed 4 player games.

Awesome. That was one of the few annoyances I was having while playing the witch doctor and the wizard. A run lock key will be very welcome.

Shadout wrote:
Keldar wrote:

As Sonicator said, the active skills are locked to each slot. You can't put your "1" skills into the "3" slot, for example. So for each of those six active slots there aren't 22 active skills - the breakdown is actually 4/4/4/3/4/3.

Sure you can. The only abilities you cant place on LBM and RMB are skills which aren't directly target based - as that would give quite a few problems when moving around.

You just have to enable Elective mode in the options. Blizzard decided to hide an essential setting deep in there, which everyone who plays beyond Normal will probably want to activate. However we as players are apparently stupid and can't handle such complex "choices" ourselves. Or something like that.
Edit: And then it have been said like 5 times already. Oh well.

Personally I'm going to try this one out: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/calculator/demon-hunter#cYTVkj!Yhc!baZbaY
Which have 3 skills from "Hunting" and none from "Primary" for example.

Wouldn't a build like that run into resource shortages? My impression was that the skills in the "primary" group are there since they use very little of (or actively generate) the character's resource(s).

Sonicator wrote:

Wouldn't a build like that run into resource shortages? My impression was that the skills in the "primary" group are there since they use very little of (or actively generate) the character's resource(s).

I have no idea. Probably. I will find out I guess.
Its the only build I've made for any class tbh, as I'd rather want to make builds as I lvl up than having something preplanned. I just liked the Ballistics passive so much that I had to try make something out of it

However the resource idea is this:
3 hatred from Companion per second. Should be up nearly all the time.
Marked for death: 3 hatred per attack (not sure how it counts each attack from Rapid Fire, but assuming its per attack speed, that is 3 hatred roughly every second or less. Marked for death wont be up on all targets all the time of course. I don't know if you can mark multiple enemies with it and get hatred back multiple times per attack that way.

Rapid Fire cost 10 hatred per attack speed (after the initial 20 hatred), it is a really cheap skill to use, as long as you don't break the channeling.
With a little hatred regen from gear it might just work out. I'm more worried about the discipline cost - which is why I ended up including the ability which restores disc, even though I would prefer to use that for something else if I could.

Scratched wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

You know, Caddrel, I can't tell if you're happy or unhappy about the stuff you're posting. You seem to be offended that Blizzard wants to make a game that people will play for a long time because they'll make more money if that happens. Isn't that ok? Isn't that sort of the point, both for gamers and for game creators?

The way I interpret it is similar to how I interpret how Battlefield3 has turned out. Potentially the gameplay is designed to follow business interests, they can take a slice of gear sold through the RMAH so gear is what's important.

Really? i thought the implementation of unlock packs in bf3 was a really lazy afterthought, and a poorly implemented form of microtransaction.

ibdoomed wrote:

Most MMO populations are only 15,000 players? Ok.

I sure hope you are right and there's not going to be near that many people buying D3. I thought it was more popular. Amalur sold 300k didn't it?

You seem to be making the logical deduction that since *only* 300 thousand people were online playing the beta at the same time means that sales of Diablo 3 are likely to be poor. This is ridiculous. Beta numbers of this sort are totally meaningless for all sorts of reasons. And this one even more so because it is an open beta that anyone can get into.

Tamren wrote:
ibdoomed wrote:

Most MMO populations are only 15,000 players? Ok.

I sure hope you are right and there's not going to be near that many people buying D3. I thought it was more popular. Amalur sold 300k didn't it?

You seem to be making the logical deduction that since *only* 300 thousand people were online playing the beta at the same time means that sales of Diablo 3 are likely to be poor. This is ridiculous. Beta numbers of this sort are totally meaningless for all sorts of reasons. And this one even more so because it is an open beta that anyone can get into.

remember? he doesnt troll...

Why is there math in the video game thread?

Because math is what Keldar does?

Shadout wrote:
Sonicator wrote:

Wouldn't a build like that run into resource shortages? My impression was that the skills in the "primary" group are there since they use very little of (or actively generate) the character's resource(s).

I have no idea. Probably. I will find out I guess.
Its the only build I've made for any class tbh, as I'd rather want to make builds as I lvl up than having something preplanned. I just liked the Ballistics passive so much that I had to try make something out of it

However the resource idea is this:
3 hatred from Companion per second. Should be up nearly all the time.
Marked for death: 3 hatred per attack (not sure how it counts each attack from Rapid Fire, but assuming its per attack speed, that is 3 hatred roughly every second or less. Marked for death wont be up on all targets all the time of course. I don't know if you can mark multiple enemies with it and get hatred back multiple times per attack that way.

Rapid Fire cost 10 hatred per attack speed (after the initial 20 hatred), it is a really cheap skill to use, as long as you don't break the channeling.
With a little hatred regen from gear it might just work out. I'm more worried about the discipline cost - which is why I ended up including the ability which restores disc, even though I would prefer to use that for something else if I could.

True, if you bunch enemies up while waiting for hatred to recharge then burn them down in short bursts it probably would work.

I'm really looking forward to playing with this game at higher levels!

Shadout wrote:

My point just is, there wont be millions of good builds which a lot of people seem to claim. And if there really were, it would be bad for the game (as Inferno would be too easy).

That doesn't make any sense. Neither is millions of reasonable builds impossible out of billions of possibilities nor would many viable builds imply an easy Inferno.

If they've done their homework ( a LOT of homework), there could be a ton of builds that all just barely squeak through the highest difficulty.

There have to be some builds that are stronger than others. How else would you be able to brag about making it to 60 with a melee Wizard or something else silly?

Class balance isn't about "am I as powerful as that other build?"

It's about "can I reasonably expect to be successful with a build that I think is fun to play?"

That's their explicit goal, the rune system looks like a solid starting point, and we know for a fact that Blizzard patches the hell out of their games.

I'm not too worried.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Shadout wrote:

My point just is, there wont be millions of good builds which a lot of people seem to claim. And if there really were, it would be bad for the game (as Inferno would be too easy).

That doesn't make any sense. Neither is millions of reasonable builds impossible out of billions of possibilities nor would many viable builds imply an easy Inferno.

If they've done their homework ( a LOT of homework), there could be a ton of builds that all just barely squeak through the highest difficulty.

I think what he's driving at is what passes the skill barrier for higher difficulties? I spent a while trying to think of how best to phase this, without leading to diversions, but based on what we currently know about D3 can someone answer the following:

Can you rank each of the following in terms of importance to succeed at higher difficulties:
-Player skill
-Gear
-Character build

ranalin wrote:
Tamren wrote:
ibdoomed wrote:

Most MMO populations are only 15,000 players? Ok.

I sure hope you are right and there's not going to be near that many people buying D3. I thought it was more popular. Amalur sold 300k didn't it?

You seem to be making the logical deduction that since *only* 300 thousand people were online playing the beta at the same time means that sales of Diablo 3 are likely to be poor. This is ridiculous. Beta numbers of this sort are totally meaningless for all sorts of reasons. And this one even more so because it is an open beta that anyone can get into.

remember? he doesnt troll...

I'm getting really sick of being accused of trolling when trying to have a fricking normal conversation with fanboys. If differing opinions upsets you people so much, fine, I'll just fricking go away. Gone. Bye. Kiss my

Tamren wrote:
ibdoomed wrote:

Most MMO populations are only 15,000 players? Ok.

I sure hope you are right and there's not going to be near that many people buying D3. I thought it was more popular. Amalur sold 300k didn't it?

You seem to be making the logical deduction that since *only* 300 thousand people were online playing the beta at the same time means that sales of Diablo 3 are likely to be poor. This is ridiculous. Beta numbers of this sort are totally meaningless for all sorts of reasons. And this one even more so because it is an open beta that anyone can get into.

My original point is that with only 300k people online, the servers were unstable and even sometimes unplayable. I was expecting millions of sales and thus millions of people online so stability is going to be a big problem, even if you are playing alone.

Someone else mentioned the 15k number being per shard. Is D3 really sharded since everyone can at anytime jump into someone elses game? Instanced, obviously, but sharded isn't the term I would use. I'm going more on the idea of this is one large server farm.

Edit: Don't bother responding. I'll just leave.

BadKen wrote:

*puts on Reckoning fanboy hat*

Reckoning sold 400,000 in 2 months in the US only, not counting digital sales.
vgchartz showed it over a million worldwide last month.

*doffs Reckoning fanboy hat*

Had to add before I go: That's awesome! It's such a great game.

ibdoomed wrote:

My original point is that with only 300k people online, the servers were unstable and even sometimes unplayable.

Except that's the point of a stress test. I'm not saying there won't be issues but you can't base conclusions from when they're testing for issues.

I'm just happy the Vanishing Dye lets you wear invisible pants.