Any Bind on items should be bound to the account, not the characters.
And this would stimulate trade value how?
Who said anything about trade value? I just don't want test out my staff barbarian build with an awesome staff to find out it's terrible and now I can never swap that staff over to my monk.
I'm sure this comes down to definition of 'awesome.' You can hold the best staff you've had on reserve while using an awesome but not quite as awesome staff to test it.
I remember the days when WW and Iceblink were the bees knees.
...
I'm old.
It'll happen again - I can assure you that the D3 expansions and patches will introduce ever more jawdropping items, with all sorts of hitherto unheard-of mods, in order to draw back players...
And everyone will forget how gameplay expectations moved on as well, like how team Baal walks became Baal runs with a fragile teleporting Sorceress, to Baal botting with a max block max res ridiculous life teleporting Paladin with unresistable unblockable hammers of 20k damage. And now you're a noob if you can't clear the first four minion waves the moment they appear.
ronya on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
But my build requires a staff with +3% chance to head bonk and at least +100 damage to nut crushes. Only the staff of Curly has that.
Well you're going to have to weigh the value of the staff against the possibility that the build might not work. (Or wait for someone to make a similar build and post on Gamefaqs - a possibility that's actually heightened by the fact that since the staff is BoE, it'll be more likely to drop than the super-rare D2 items, meaning more people will be able to get their hands on it and try out fringe builds based around a single item).
But my build requires a staff with +3% chance to head bonk and at least +100 damage to nut crushes. Only the staff of Curly has that.
Well, everyone is going to want to borrow the Sword of Awesome from other players really cheaply just to see if it works, and Bind to Account On Equip also works against that.
Part of any Bind to X system is that something is going to become more expensive. In this case you're just going to have to trade for another Staff of Curly, so to speak, or become much better at mathcraft.
But seriously guys. I'll buy this game day 1. I have a terrible lack of clickclickclick in my life, and Diablo 3 can fill that void.
Damn straight. Torchlight will be a nice hold over, but once the specs for this are released, I'm building a new computer and hooking it up to my living room TV.
But you could do that in D2 WITH stats. Sorcs can be either single damage or AoE (fuck that term for a game like this). How does removing stats help IMPROVE that?
Because for the most part, both builds used very similar stats, with perhaps minor variance based on differing item configurations, and then dumping the rest into Stamina and maybe some energy if they were feeling frisky?
The end result is that the stats were just an ends to a means; being able to equip your shit. Thus, the items themselves were more important than the ability to place (or misplace) skill points.
So perhaps this 'nerfs' the freedom to make a "melee sorceress" or a plate wearing necromancer. The talent trees and skill rune customization looks like they'll be absolutely insanely cool. Instead of pouring points into Str and Dex to wear some armour and swing a giant sword, you'll be able to make your teleport go further, and perhaps damage enemies when you appear. Suddenly you're Nightcrawler! Or to include another damage type or effect to a spell, or combine skills for crazy abilities.
If anything, they've removed one level of customization that was really just the domain of the crazies and the math whores, and replaced it with a system of a different nature that could be absurdly customizable and lead to piles of playstyle changes.
So while your Sorceress in D2 could run around with a giant sword, your Wizard in D3 can teleport into a group of enemies and they just die, or something.
How cool is that?
Note: that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there'll be plenty of incredible combinations of runes and talents that'll make for just as many varieties of each class (if not moreso) than we had back when we could choose to go to X Str for ____ or X+12 Str for __________.
The thing is, everything you're talking about sounds EXACTLY like synergies from D2. There's nothing different other than they make putting points into a skill a little more rewarding than "an additional 1% damage increase".
Have you looked at the sorts of things skill runes are going to be able to do?
You can add one to your hydra skill that makes the entire hydra, not just the head, crawl out of the ground and follow you around. You can add one to your skull of flames skill that makes a fiery spirit rise from the monsters you kill to fight for you. You can add one to your whirlwind skill that makes little tornados spin off to damage enemies.
I'm beginning to think that this game will be too awesome.
What does it say about me that when I read that article the most important thing for me is that the Witch Doctor can end up summoning locust men and a giant frog?
What does it say about me that when I read that article the most important thing for me is that the Witch Doctor can end up summoning locust men and a giant frog?
the important thing to know is: are they men made of a swarm of locusts or are they humanoid locusts?
What does it say about me that when I read that article the most important thing for me is that the Witch Doctor can end up summoning locust men and a giant frog?
the important thing to know is: are they men made of a swarm of locusts or are they humanoid locusts?
Not even God knows that now.
Whatever the case, these are some seriously badass locusts.
Macera on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
So over in another Diablo thread, we're starting to discuss the change in gameplay from part 1 to 2, where it wasn't necessary nor rewarding to explore in Diablo 2. I decided to carry it over to this thread to bring it up in the context of part 2. From what it looks like so far, do you guys think they'll reintroduce the exploration and rewards from part 1? Or do you think they'll axe it in favor of making the game more "go straight" like Diablo 2?
For anyone confused, when I say rewards I'm specifically talking about things like bookshelves and shrines.
So over in another Diablo thread, we're starting to discuss the change in gameplay from part 1 to 2, where it wasn't necessary nor rewarding to explore in Diablo 2. I decided to carry it over to this thread to bring it up in the context of part 2. From what it looks like so far, do you guys think they'll reintroduce the exploration and rewards from part 1? Or do you think they'll axe it in favor of making the game more "go straight" like Diablo 2?
For anyone confused, when I say rewards I'm specifically talking about things like bookshelves and shrines.
I'm guessing they will make it more like d2. The exploration in D1 is nice, but it also slows the flow down. It's probably easier for the designers if they can keep the pace of the area going how they want, without having to worry about people stopping to look for hidden shit.
I did miss the shrines/hidden shit from 1 though.
Morkath on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
In what way was the exploration nice in Diablo 2? It was relatively useless. I only utilize it for the first, MAYBE second, act to gain some more experience to be able to go forward at a higher level. The rewards for exploration were fighting a named enemy or two, and that was it. It was far more rewarding to farm up end-act content and/or just plow forward through the game constantly.
Well, part of the reason exploration and item hunting was abandoned in favor of crazy leveling in one spot like baal and item farming meph/pindle was that people just played the game to death and found out exactly how to min/max the hell out of everything. No one played D1 that hardcore, mostly because you could just cheat like crazy but I'm sure if they did we would probably see "caves lvl4 join-25" games being hosted when people found out that it was the best place for leveling and once you got X level you would just start teleporting around cats in a private game to farm books then move on to farming laz for whatever.
I remember the days when WW and Iceblink were the bees knees.
...
I'm old.
It'll happen again - I can assure you that the D3 expansions and patches will introduce ever more jawdropping items, with all sorts of hitherto unheard-of mods, in order to draw back players...
And everyone will forget how gameplay expectations moved on as well, like how team Baal walks became Baal runs with a fragile teleporting Sorceress, to Baal botting with a max block max res ridiculous life teleporting Paladin with unresistable unblockable hammers of 20k damage. And now you're a noob if you can't clear the first four minion waves the moment they appear.
Which is why I'll never go online with Diablo 2 again. I like my Zeal/Thorns paladin, and my Immolation arrow spamming Amazon. I can't roll with the cool kids though.
I meant in general, exploration is nice, not specifically D2's.
Oh, heh, my mistake.
Playing Diablo 1 has kinda had me realizing that this is a big flaw in Diablo 2. I mean, sure in D2 you can run around and kill the fuck out of everything. And I specifically remember wanting to see what that was like in a Diablo context. But it loses out so much on the aspect of wandering around, but doing so carefully, and having some sort of reward waiting for you. Even if you couldn't use the books, they sold for a healthy amount of cash.
Henroid on
0
Forever Zefirocloaked in the midnight glory of an event horizonRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
I know when I first get D3, I'm just going to play through single and enjoy myself
Take my time, a leisurely pace, take it all in
Forever Zefiro on
XBL - Foreverender | 3DS FC - 1418 6696 1012 | Steam ID | LoL
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I know when I first get D3, I'm just going to play through single and enjoy myself
Take my time, a leisurely pace, take it all in
Definitely. The rush to the multiplayer aspect isn't going to interest me. Once I have my sampling of it solo, I'll join up to play with you guys online.
Or against, if the PvP is manageable and we can manage to be sporting about it.
So over in another Diablo thread, we're starting to discuss the change in gameplay from part 1 to 2, where it wasn't necessary nor rewarding to explore in Diablo 2. I decided to carry it over to this thread to bring it up in the context of part 2. From what it looks like so far, do you guys think they'll reintroduce the exploration and rewards from part 1? Or do you think they'll axe it in favor of making the game more "go straight" like Diablo 2?
For anyone confused, when I say rewards I'm specifically talking about things like bookshelves and shrines.
Well, they've already (re?)introduced random sidequests for DIII.
For random rewards, there were typically treasure chests at the end of side dungeons, even in Diablo II. They were just rarely used because most players could take on Baal solo, so why not? Only the poor are forced to run The Pit or Ancient Tunnels or wherever.
But it occurs to me that if Diablo II had random "bookshelves" scattered around, someone would eventually discover the best possible waypoint for locating such rewards, and then run just those ten thousand times. The same way players run, say, Lower Kurast superchests in single-player mode. I only wish I were kidding.
ronya on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
If they have random quests (truly random) that's awesome.
But the random exploration and reward thing shouldn't be limited to dungeons set aside from that. It should occur within the linear dungeons is what I'm saying. Like, if you go right, you finish the dungeon. But what's to the left? And if you go right, maybe there's another side path.
Then you get players aggravated that they're doing so much backtracking. It's really a no-win.
ronya on
0
Forever Zefirocloaked in the midnight glory of an event horizonRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
Everytime I pick D2 back up, I start to have fun, but then everyone just steamrolls everything because they all have the best items, so it's just me running behind them getting rushed through everything
I want randomly going through dungeons to be the best way to get items, not running to the same spot and killing the same dude 50 times in a row
Diablo doesn't even drop anything in the first one!
Forever Zefiro on
XBL - Foreverender | 3DS FC - 1418 6696 1012 | Steam ID | LoL
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
But it occurs to me that if Diablo II had random "bookshelves" scattered around, someone would eventually discover the best possible waypoint for locating such rewards, and then run just those ten thousand times. The same way players run, say, Lower Kurast superchests in single-player mode. I only wish I were kidding.
That is just mind boggling. People do this in single player? I could understand doing it on Bnet where a high rune can be worth a lot of money, but in single player? WHY?!?
Then you get players aggravated that they're doing so much backtracking. It's really a no-win.
It's only backtracking, and forced backtracking at that, if the rewards from random exploration are more rewarding than anything else.
There's a middleground there. It exists. It doesn't have to be "do it this way or don't."
Well... as Blizzard has discovered, players say they want one thing but do another. It can be taken for granted that players will min-max, and then blame the game if min-maxing makes the game boring. And saying well you could just not min-max isn't acceptable as an answer.
It's already the case in Diablo II that you can wander off the linear track to poke around assorted dungeons. And at the end of it you'll get a shiny chest. And to make this even better, assorted random dungeons generally have far higher area levels than the rest of the entire Act, so any random monster there can drop uber loot, and will generally drop better loot than the "linear" dungeons of the same Act. (e.g., the Mausoleum off Hell Act I Cold Plains is level 85, the same as Hell Act V's Throne of Destruction. Anything Lister the Tormentor can drop, can drop in Act I's Mausoleum).
Do players bother? No. Everyone just barrels ahead towards Baal and murders him a million times - because that's the fastest way to get loot per time spent - then complains that murdering Baal a million times is boring. Well duh. When clearing the Cow level was the fastest everyone did that a million times too.
It's always "do it this way or don't", because that's apparently just how players roll. Someone eventually figures out the One Best Way, then everyone does it, whatever it is.
Then you get players aggravated that they're doing so much backtracking. It's really a no-win.
It's only backtracking, and forced backtracking at that, if the rewards from random exploration are more rewarding than anything else.
There's a middleground there. It exists. It doesn't have to be "do it this way or don't."
Well... as Blizzard has discovered, players say they want one thing but do another. It can be taken for granted that players will min-max, and then blame the game if min-maxing makes the game boring. And saying well you could just not min-max isn't acceptable as an answer.
It's already the case in Diablo II that you can wander off the linear track to poke around assorted dungeons. And at the end of it you'll get a shiny chest. And to make this even better, assorted random dungeons generally have far higher area levels than the rest of the entire Act, so any random monster there can drop uber loot, and will generally drop better loot than the "linear" dungeons of the same Act. (e.g., the Mausoleum off Hell Act I Cold Plains is level 85, the same as Hell Act V's Throne of Destruction. Anything Lister the Tormentor can drop, can drop in Act I's Mausoleum).
Do players bother? No. Everyone just barrels ahead towards Baal and murders him a million times - because that's the fastest way to get loot per time spent - then complains that murdering Baal a million times is boring. Well duh. When clearing the Cow level was the fastest everyone did that a million times too.
It's always "do it this way or don't", because that's apparently just how players roll. Someone eventually figures out the One Best Way, then everyone does it, whatever it is.
i think this is almost entirely due to how min/max diablo is inherently. random loot drops that have random prefix/suffixes? mods that alter said items also drop? etc.. leads to the running of the things that have the highest chance of guaranteed goods(uniques), good mods (runes), or just good drops in general, rather than wasting time on shit drops
not necessarily a bad thing, i just think it would be weird of someone (not you in specific) to criticize diablo as a series for being min/maxy, when it is built (perhaps not designed) to support such behaviors pretty well
Yeah, Diablo is inherently like that, so it's good that Blizzard is aware of this. The minmaxy path must also be the interesting and intuitive path to take, because that's the one the bulk of players will automatically follow. I think they've explicitly said so in one of the Diablo III videos so far.
Regardless, all I meant was that if you design dungeons to reward exploration or complete clears, then almost everyone will explore and completely clear dungeons, even if they preferred doing something else (headhunting bosses?) and that something else is only marginally less rewarding.
ronya on
0
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
Diablo has always been min/maxy. Removing that and focusing on being as awesome as possible and fucking up as many gruesome things as possible is even better.
If there's one thing Blizzard really needs to fix in D3 it's certain areas being better to run than others. Honestly most of the loot should just be randomly distributed in chests across the game. Boss drops should be on a long cooldown. Just encourage people to run whatever areas they like best for fun and reward them along the way.
But it occurs to me that if Diablo II had random "bookshelves" scattered around, someone would eventually discover the best possible waypoint for locating such rewards, and then run just those ten thousand times. The same way players run, say, Lower Kurast superchests in single-player mode. I only wish I were kidding.
That is just mind boggling. People do this in single player? I could understand doing it on Bnet where a high rune can be worth a lot of money, but in single player? WHY?!?
Bragging rights like everything else. There is a single player community that exists on the diii forums, and probably elsewhere. There are certain 3rd party programs (ATMA) where you can mule/trade items with other single players. Trading hacked/duped items are of course a big no-no.
The main advantage for running it in single player is the static maps, so you can reroll until you find a Lower Kurast map where the waypoint is next to 2-3 superchests, making each run in seconds. The other big advantage is you can set player settings up to 8, so you don't have to wait on other people to join for better drops.
Sorry this doesn't really answer your question though,
Uh, to get items to help them advance in the game?
Did you read the thread? We are talking 5000 runs + to see a single rare rune. Thats hours and hour of absolute monotony. And it's in single player, so it's only for your own amusement.
Uh, to get items to help them advance in the game?
Did you read the thread? We are talking 5000 runs + to see a single rare rune. Thats hours and hour of absolute monotony. And it's in single player, so it's only for your own amusement.
I have to assume that at least some of that is bot'd, just like online.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Uh, to get items to help them advance in the game?
Did you read the thread? We are talking 5000 runs + to see a single rare rune. Thats hours and hour of absolute monotony. And it's in single player, so it's only for your own amusement.
If we're talking around on the level of multiple thousands of runs for a single item, I would argue that doesn't make sense in multiplayer either.
Uh, to get items to help them advance in the game?
Did you read the thread? We are talking 5000 runs + to see a single rare rune. Thats hours and hour of absolute monotony. And it's in single player, so it's only for your own amusement.
I have to assume that at least some of that is bot'd, just like online.
Why bot? Just use a trainer to give yourself the runes you want. If single player people wanna do it legit, then don't use either.
Uh, to get items to help them advance in the game?
Did you read the thread? We are talking 5000 runs + to see a single rare rune. Thats hours and hour of absolute monotony. And it's in single player, so it's only for your own amusement.
I have to assume that at least some of that is bot'd, just like online.
Why bot? Just use a trainer to give yourself the runes you want. If single player people wanna do it legit, then don't use either.
Because the item actually dropping might give them a sense of legitimacy, in that the item is real, even if the manner it was obtained with was questionable?
Man, I don't know. I can't understand doing 5000 runs of anything for some shit, and I'm a WoW addict. Doing dozens or hundreds of something is in my blood, and that is still fucking bananas.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Those numbers are pretty much possible because of the existence of Enigma, which will honestly be a non-issue in D3. Hell, I question whether Teleport is going to return, since it doesn't actually promote teamwork.
People with more free time will have a bigger advantage of course, but that is the nature with these types of games. I can only hope they'll have a countermeasure to bots, since they do make the game unfun.
Posts
I'm sure this comes down to definition of 'awesome.' You can hold the best staff you've had on reserve while using an awesome but not quite as awesome staff to test it.
It'll happen again - I can assure you that the D3 expansions and patches will introduce ever more jawdropping items, with all sorts of hitherto unheard-of mods, in order to draw back players...
And everyone will forget how gameplay expectations moved on as well, like how team Baal walks became Baal runs with a fragile teleporting Sorceress, to Baal botting with a max block max res ridiculous life teleporting Paladin with unresistable unblockable hammers of 20k damage. And now you're a noob if you can't clear the first four minion waves the moment they appear.
Well you're going to have to weigh the value of the staff against the possibility that the build might not work. (Or wait for someone to make a similar build and post on Gamefaqs - a possibility that's actually heightened by the fact that since the staff is BoE, it'll be more likely to drop than the super-rare D2 items, meaning more people will be able to get their hands on it and try out fringe builds based around a single item).
Well, everyone is going to want to borrow the Sword of Awesome from other players really cheaply just to see if it works, and Bind to Account On Equip also works against that.
Part of any Bind to X system is that something is going to become more expensive. In this case you're just going to have to trade for another Staff of Curly, so to speak, or become much better at mathcraft.
Damn straight. Torchlight will be a nice hold over, but once the specs for this are released, I'm building a new computer and hooking it up to my living room TV.
Have you looked at the sorts of things skill runes are going to be able to do?
http://hellforge.gameriot.com/blogs/Hellforge/Diablo-III-An-In-Depth-Look-into-Rune-Skill-Combinations
You can add one to your hydra skill that makes the entire hydra, not just the head, crawl out of the ground and follow you around. You can add one to your skull of flames skill that makes a fiery spirit rise from the monsters you kill to fight for you. You can add one to your whirlwind skill that makes little tornados spin off to damage enemies.
I'm beginning to think that this game will be too awesome.
the important thing to know is: are they men made of a swarm of locusts or are they humanoid locusts?
Not even God knows that now.
Whatever the case, these are some seriously badass locusts.
For anyone confused, when I say rewards I'm specifically talking about things like bookshelves and shrines.
I'm guessing they will make it more like d2. The exploration in D1 is nice, but it also slows the flow down. It's probably easier for the designers if they can keep the pace of the area going how they want, without having to worry about people stopping to look for hidden shit.
I did miss the shrines/hidden shit from 1 though.
Which is why I'll never go online with Diablo 2 again. I like my Zeal/Thorns paladin, and my Immolation arrow spamming Amazon. I can't roll with the cool kids though.
Oh, heh, my mistake.
Playing Diablo 1 has kinda had me realizing that this is a big flaw in Diablo 2. I mean, sure in D2 you can run around and kill the fuck out of everything. And I specifically remember wanting to see what that was like in a Diablo context. But it loses out so much on the aspect of wandering around, but doing so carefully, and having some sort of reward waiting for you. Even if you couldn't use the books, they sold for a healthy amount of cash.
Take my time, a leisurely pace, take it all in
XBL - Foreverender | 3DS FC - 1418 6696 1012 | Steam ID | LoL
Definitely. The rush to the multiplayer aspect isn't going to interest me. Once I have my sampling of it solo, I'll join up to play with you guys online.
Or against, if the PvP is manageable and we can manage to be sporting about it.
Well, they've already (re?)introduced random sidequests for DIII.
For random rewards, there were typically treasure chests at the end of side dungeons, even in Diablo II. They were just rarely used because most players could take on Baal solo, so why not? Only the poor are forced to run The Pit or Ancient Tunnels or wherever.
But it occurs to me that if Diablo II had random "bookshelves" scattered around, someone would eventually discover the best possible waypoint for locating such rewards, and then run just those ten thousand times. The same way players run, say, Lower Kurast superchests in single-player mode. I only wish I were kidding.
But the random exploration and reward thing shouldn't be limited to dungeons set aside from that. It should occur within the linear dungeons is what I'm saying. Like, if you go right, you finish the dungeon. But what's to the left? And if you go right, maybe there's another side path.
I want randomly going through dungeons to be the best way to get items, not running to the same spot and killing the same dude 50 times in a row
Diablo doesn't even drop anything in the first one!
XBL - Foreverender | 3DS FC - 1418 6696 1012 | Steam ID | LoL
It's only backtracking, and forced backtracking at that, if the rewards from random exploration are more rewarding than anything else.
There's a middleground there. It exists. It doesn't have to be "do it this way or don't."
That is just mind boggling. People do this in single player? I could understand doing it on Bnet where a high rune can be worth a lot of money, but in single player? WHY?!?
Well... as Blizzard has discovered, players say they want one thing but do another. It can be taken for granted that players will min-max, and then blame the game if min-maxing makes the game boring. And saying well you could just not min-max isn't acceptable as an answer.
It's already the case in Diablo II that you can wander off the linear track to poke around assorted dungeons. And at the end of it you'll get a shiny chest. And to make this even better, assorted random dungeons generally have far higher area levels than the rest of the entire Act, so any random monster there can drop uber loot, and will generally drop better loot than the "linear" dungeons of the same Act. (e.g., the Mausoleum off Hell Act I Cold Plains is level 85, the same as Hell Act V's Throne of Destruction. Anything Lister the Tormentor can drop, can drop in Act I's Mausoleum).
Do players bother? No. Everyone just barrels ahead towards Baal and murders him a million times - because that's the fastest way to get loot per time spent - then complains that murdering Baal a million times is boring. Well duh. When clearing the Cow level was the fastest everyone did that a million times too.
It's always "do it this way or don't", because that's apparently just how players roll. Someone eventually figures out the One Best Way, then everyone does it, whatever it is.
i think this is almost entirely due to how min/max diablo is inherently. random loot drops that have random prefix/suffixes? mods that alter said items also drop? etc.. leads to the running of the things that have the highest chance of guaranteed goods(uniques), good mods (runes), or just good drops in general, rather than wasting time on shit drops
not necessarily a bad thing, i just think it would be weird of someone (not you in specific) to criticize diablo as a series for being min/maxy, when it is built (perhaps not designed) to support such behaviors pretty well
Regardless, all I meant was that if you design dungeons to reward exploration or complete clears, then almost everyone will explore and completely clear dungeons, even if they preferred doing something else (headhunting bosses?) and that something else is only marginally less rewarding.
I guess it's how you determine min/max.
If it's stat allocation, any game with stats.
If you mean the best thing with the minimal risk to beat the game, that's pretty much the strategy with every game ever.
Bragging rights like everything else. There is a single player community that exists on the diii forums, and probably elsewhere. There are certain 3rd party programs (ATMA) where you can mule/trade items with other single players. Trading hacked/duped items are of course a big no-no.
The main advantage for running it in single player is the static maps, so you can reroll until you find a Lower Kurast map where the waypoint is next to 2-3 superchests, making each run in seconds. The other big advantage is you can set player settings up to 8, so you don't have to wait on other people to join for better drops.
Sorry this doesn't really answer your question though,
Did you read the thread? We are talking 5000 runs + to see a single rare rune. Thats hours and hour of absolute monotony. And it's in single player, so it's only for your own amusement.
I have to assume that at least some of that is bot'd, just like online.
If we're talking around on the level of multiple thousands of runs for a single item, I would argue that doesn't make sense in multiplayer either.
Though this is probably why I suck at WoW.
Why bot? Just use a trainer to give yourself the runes you want. If single player people wanna do it legit, then don't use either.
Xbox Live: Kunohara
Because the item actually dropping might give them a sense of legitimacy, in that the item is real, even if the manner it was obtained with was questionable?
Man, I don't know. I can't understand doing 5000 runs of anything for some shit, and I'm a WoW addict. Doing dozens or hundreds of something is in my blood, and that is still fucking bananas.
People with more free time will have a bigger advantage of course, but that is the nature with these types of games. I can only hope they'll have a countermeasure to bots, since they do make the game unfun.