Party based d3?

[Carrot Man]

Wouldnt it be interesting if diablo 3 was more party based than single character based? when i say that, i mean, instead of you controling one character, you control like 4, and it would be races or something like that instead of classes. The races would be the background of the classes in d2

ea.

If you choose the paladin race, your characters will mainly have healing and other aura powers, but you will still have a ranged unit and a spellcaster as well as a palain unit.

The way you would control your party would be that the party leader (if its paladin race, its a paladin. if its mage race, its a mage, etc.) attacks and your troops react how you set your party formation. If you choose flanks, your leader will attack and the party will split up to surround the enemy. If you want to do an all out attack, you set it to that and your units will make a full out attack on the enemy.

You would also be able to customize your party by 1) equiping your party members with apropiate weapons 2) put stats/skills into all your party members.

The leader would be the race class character. So if you chose the barbarian race, your leader would be a barbarian, but your others could be a mage or healer or ranged unit, etc.

i may have repeated myself, so sorry

And then theres multiplayer.

When you have friends jump into a game, they bring their party with them, and you all team up(or fight eachother) in games possibly similar to diablo 2.(maybe the enemies would have a party system as well)

so what do you think of my idea for d3?

[SouLess]

So basically it would be another RPG game? BTW; Those are really hard to do online

[Carrot Man]

well it wouldnt be turn based if thats what you were thinking

[McGorilla]

I personally think that your idea sux...Diablo isnt that kinda game...also imagine how hard it would be to have to equip 4 people instead of just one...think about it

[Carrot Man]

i dont know, warcraft is an rts, yet, there are hundreds of mods availbe that make the game into something else. So why not? Besides, if blizzard really put time and effort into a game relative to my idea, dont you think it would be at least a little good?

[SouLess]

It would be too much like Might And Magic games, but online. It wouldn't work too well

[Carrot Man]

.....

it would be a lot like...full spectrum warrior(the aspect of a party of 4 with special skills for each of them), gothic appearance of diablo(obviously), a little bit of kotor without the time freeze, the troops would either obey your orders or attack on their own, and you would have a lot of hotkeys to switch ur character or modify your attack midway in...

[BlueCheeseKilla]

I perfer diablo how it is, I think controlling more than one character makes it too complicated and less fun.

[SouLess]

It would be way to complicated for people to just pick up. Besides, Diablo is a simple hack and slash game, not an uberly advanced one.

[Carrot Man]

remember dungeon seige? its a simple hack and slash yet they have a party system. If diablo 3 would have this, it would be more advanced obviously.

[SouLess]

Right, but DS online didn't support more than 1 char.

[drax]

Sounds like turning it into a Warcraft 3 clone. D2 is good how it is, and I think they should stick to that.

[McGorilla]

I think that the way that Diablo games are set out is sorta a trademark. If you think about it, it looks the best from almost all other RPGs. I highly doubt that much will change from the gameplay point of view. Eg. It won't be an MMORPG there are already loads of those, and to make it one would be to take away, well, the Diablo in Diablo games. Diablo games are in there own genre, not RPG, not HACK'N'SLASH, they are DIABLO. I know that I sound dumb for that because they are in fact RPG and HACK'N'SLASH, but I'm just trying to make a point.

[drax]

Yes, its is an RPG/Hack'n'slash, but that's what makes it different. The fact that it's a mix of the two just makes it very fun.

[LordOfMars]

I disagree that the 'Diablo Experience' couldn't translate to a MMORPG... it would basically be like a battle.net Diablo game that has unlimited players and just keeps going... obviously the world would need to be larger and monsters would have to respawn after some time, but the basic gameplay and style could remain true to the Diablo series.

However, I think being party based, controlling multiple characters, and having races would truly change the game beyond recognition.

[SouLess]

Originally posted by McGorilla
I think that the way that Diablo games are set out is sorta a trademark. If you think about it, it looks the best from almost all other RPGs. I highly doubt that much will change from the gameplay point of view. Eg. It won't be an MMORPG there are already loads of those, and to make it one would be to take away, well, the Diablo in Diablo games. Diablo games are in there own genre, not RPG, not HACK'N'SLASH, they are DIABLO. I know that I sound dumb for that because they are in fact RPG and HACK'N'SLASH, but I'm just trying to make a point.

There are other games out there that are RPNS that are much better than Diablo, they just don't have the online uberness of Battle.net.

[LordOfMars]

Originally posted by Grieving Mendacity
There are other games out there that are RPNS that are much better than Diablo, they just don't have the online uberness of Battle.net.

Such as... ?

[diablo66666]

i can see the game name now: diablo the frozen throne

[BH_Naft]

1234567890

[bongbittybong]

no thats gay theyd be as useless as my mercanery and die all the time,for them to be halfway useful youd have to equip them with your armor and theyd eat all your potions.one asshole trying to kill me just to pop me or steal my gold is enough,but 4 assholes with little arrows and axexs nah uh