Diablo® III

Less monsters now?

Community
Hi guys,

I would just like to remind people that the PTR is a testing environment, and thus a whole lot of testing is going on there. The things tested on the PTR should never be considered as set in stone, so please be careful not to jump to conclusions when reading PTR patch notes - things change quite often on the PTR due to the iterative nature of the development process.

If you see something in the PTR patch notes that you do not like, then the best thing you can do is to log into the PTR and test the content in question, and then afterwards come to the forums with your feedback on why you like or dislike something.

In regards to the monster density changes you have seen on the PTR so far; these have undergone a lot of iteration, with a lot of experimentation thrown in as well. The developers were not entirely sure if players preferred more clumpy density with larger monster groups, or a more scattered density with an overall increased stream of monsters, so the developers tried different things on the PTR to see what would happen. It is fairly clear from the feedback we got so far that the monster density and spawn pacing we tested in the earlier PTR stages are preferred, so that is most likely the goal we aim for in patch 1.0.8
Reply Quote
I think the goal is that players have a choice to farm act1,2,3 or 4 without loosing efficiency. Changing to monster density is a way to accomplish this.

Based on the feedback I have watched, the Weeping Hollow for instance, was not balanced in the early version's of the PTR, it was the best zone in the game, so everybody who wants to farm efficiently will go there. That's not balancing the game, that's creating a "new act3".

I think a lot of players expect changes in the density so that they can farm more efficient then you already can in act3, correct me if I'm wrong but that wasn't the intention.
Reply Quote
02/05/2013 10:09Posted by Vaneras
more scattered density


Yes scattered is good but they need to be huge amount of them.

Thanks for reply!
Reply Quote
I think the goal is that players have a choice to farm act1,2,3 or 4 without loosing efficiency. Changing to monster density is a way to accomplish this.

Based on the feedback I have watched, the Weeping Hollow for instance, was not balanced in the early version's of the PTR, it was the best zone in the game, so everybody who wants to farm efficiently will go there. That's not balancing the game, that's creating a "new act3".

I think a lot of players expect changes in the density so that they can farm more efficient then you already can in act3, correct me if I'm wrong but that wasn't the intention.


exactly, i think people got too excited about a new area with v high density. Once they'd been playing that 1 area for a month solid it would get really boring. i hope they balance it better, by making density higher in most areas in acts 1, 2 and 4 but no 1 area with insane density.
Reply Quote
02/05/2013 10:09Posted by Vaneras
In regards to the monster density changes you have seen on the PTR so far; these have undergone a lot of iteration, with a lot of experimentation thrown in as well. The developers were not entirely sure if players preferred more clumpy density with larger monster groups, or a more scattered density with an overall increased stream of monsters, so the developers tried different things on the PTR to see what would happen. It is fairly clear from the feedback we got so far that the monster density and spawn pacing we tested in the earlier PTR stages are preferred, so that is most likely the goal we aim for in patch 1.0.8


In the US forum threads I read about it, where the players were asked if they'd prefer continuous streams of mobs, or clumps of mobs, the vast majority of respondents said they preferred streams. Shortly after that 'vote' an iteration of the PTR made the mobs clumpy and reduced the numbers of them!
Reply Quote
02/05/2013 12:12Posted by CzarOp
exactly, i think people got too excited about a new area with v high density. Once they'd been playing that 1 area for a month solid it would get really boring. i hope they balance it better, by making density higher in most areas in acts 1, 2 and 4 but no 1 area with insane density.


The whole reason why Keep Depths 2 in Act III is one of the most favoured places to farm is because it has extremely high mob density. We don't want Blizzard to make some other map the new 'best' map to farm on, we want them to increase the mob density on every single map to that level, so that they're all equally as valid to farm on. Maybe that way we'd see people joining games at chapter 1 of an act and playing the whole way through it rather than just repeating one or two maps over and over.
Reply Quote
If we have abilities jumping between acts it would be much better
Reply Quote
it will be better if you make mob density related to monster power.
for example at mp10 make the mob density 300% more from its original density.(just an example)
an yes scattered density is most preferable ;)
Reply Quote
02/05/2013 10:09Posted by Vaneras
The developers were not entirely sure if players preferred more clumpy density with larger monster groups, or a more scattered density with an overall increased stream of monsters,


What's wrong with both?
How about having some variety instead of just one or the other through out the entire game?

Is it really necessary to just choose one.?
This game is homogenized enough isn't it?

At this rate they'll boil it down to one monster type in the whole game.

Seriously though, why not clumpy density in some areas and scattered in others?
Reply Quote
03/05/2013 01:43Posted by Torus
What's wrong with both?


Wonder that too!

03/05/2013 01:43Posted by Torus
How about having some variety instead of just one or the other through out the entire game?


I agree

03/05/2013 01:43Posted by Torus
Is it really necessary to just choose one.?


Doesn't have to be

03/05/2013 01:43Posted by Torus
At this rate they'll boil it down to one monster type in the whole game.


Yeah!

mob density related to monster power.
for example at mp10 make the mob density 300% more from its original density.(just an example)


Yeah that should be... maybe lower the hp of the monsters and triple it....
example if monster has 50 000hp, instead it will have 39 000 but each monsters will be 3... so it will be like 3 of 39 000 hp instead for 1 :)

Should be harder...
Edited by Babymaker#2675 on 03/05/2013 02:00 BST
Reply Quote
I'd also like to add:

I'm sure some of the devs are looking at graphs and pie charts and seeing what type of monster density is overall 'ideal', in a very mathematical way.

That's fine, some people think like that, and it's important.

However, you can't just take the 'on paper' ideal monster density and make the whole game that way.
All that would achieve is a flat feeling of sameness and monotony through the whole game.

Psychologically, you need the peaks and valleys to keep things dynamic.

For example,
Some areas will be loved by barbarians for the large monster clumps, while other areas will be loved by Demon Hunters for the long stream of endless monsters that allows them to steadily kill, but steadily recover Hatred/Discipline. Nothing wrong with that.
Reply Quote
Some areas will be loved by barbarians for the large monster clumps, while other areas will be loved by Demon Hunters for the long stream of endless monsters that allows them to steadily kill, but steadily recover Hatred/Discipline. Nothing wrong with that.

The map layouts help accomplish that a bit I think. For example, the monsters in the Weeping Hollows are always going to feel more clumped up than those on the Bridge of Korsik, simply because one map is a huge, open space, whereas the other map is a long, thin trail.

It was the same you saw in Diablo II Classic. You had the Amazons farming Canyons of the Magi in Act II for the big clumps of monster, because the area was so large and open, so it really fit well for AoE attacks like Multishot and Lightning Fury. And then you had the Barbarians run River of Flame in Act IV, because the long, thin trail with a constant stream of monsters was ideal for Whirlwind.
Reply Quote
Hi guys,

I would just like to remind people that the PTR is a testing environment, and thus a whole lot of testing is going on there. The things tested on the PTR should never be considered as set in stone, so please be careful not to jump to conclusions when reading PTR patch notes - things change quite often on the PTR due to the iterative nature of the development process.

If you see something in the PTR patch notes that you do not like, then the best thing you can do is to log into the PTR and test the content in question, and then afterwards come to the forums with your feedback on why you like or dislike something.

In regards to the monster density changes you have seen on the PTR so far; these have undergone a lot of iteration, with a lot of experimentation thrown in as well. The developers were not entirely sure if players preferred more clumpy density with larger monster groups, or a more scattered density with an overall increased stream of monsters, so the developers tried different things on the PTR to see what would happen. It is fairly clear from the feedback we got so far that the monster density and spawn pacing we tested in the earlier PTR stages are preferred, so that is most likely the goal we aim for in patch 1.0.8


I assumed PTR was meant for testing but some of the testing is kind of safe and moderate? Any plans to do some crazy ideas to see how it fits? Or do you do that kind of stuff internally?
Reply Quote
02/05/2013 10:09Posted by Vaneras
I would just like to remind people that the PTR is a testing environment, and thus a whole lot of testing is going on there.


that would be true if the PTR realms were stable enough to stay logged on for more than 30 seconds at a time, it is pathetic how unstable the realms are, when u are actively asking the community to help test and find bugs with things, when it is impossible to remain in a game or connected to the battle.net service for more than a minute or 2 at a time.
Reply Quote
Hi guys,

I would just like to remind people that the PTR is a testing environment, and thus a whole lot of testing is going on there. The things tested on the PTR should never be considered as set in stone, so please be careful not to jump to conclusions when reading PTR patch notes - things change quite often on the PTR due to the iterative nature of the development process.

If you see something in the PTR patch notes that you do not like, then the best thing you can do is to log into the PTR and test the content in question, and then afterwards come to the forums with your feedback on why you like or dislike something.

In regards to the monster density changes you have seen on the PTR so far; these have undergone a lot of iteration, with a lot of experimentation thrown in as well. The developers were not entirely sure if players preferred more clumpy density with larger monster groups, or a more scattered density with an overall increased stream of monsters, so the developers tried different things on the PTR to see what would happen. It is fairly clear from the feedback we got so far that the monster density and spawn pacing we tested in the earlier PTR stages are preferred, so that is most likely the goal we aim for in patch 1.0.8


PTR = Open Beta.
Wasn't that around here like a year ago?
Reply Quote
an overall increased stream of monsters
Reply Quote
Zones listed here per Act examples.

I'd say an overall increased stream of monsters in general, especially on large wide open outdoor areas that allow free movement for the most part

(Fields of Misery, Desolate Sands, Fields of Slaughter)

Larger clumps inside dungeons/caves/cellars and "indoor" zones would be nice however as the layout of the place restricts movement, it's better to have clumps in central areas.

(Halls of Agony,Forgotten Ruins, Keep Depths)

As far as Act 4 goes, clumping up monsters and keeping the narrower bridge areas more open would make sense, as long as theres not too much completely empty areas between groups of monsters, I'd say put elites/rares on larger more central spawned areas and white mobs in between.

Classes will be free to pick their playstyles still and areas will still feel different, the main issue atm is that some outdoor areas involve so much running between mobs that they aren't efficient due to the wide open layouts, those need a lot more spawns, however most outdoor areas have dungeons/caves spawned in them, so if they get more clumps inside them, both areas will be popular.
Edited by TeriXeri#2424 on 05/05/2013 21:16 BST
Reply Quote
05/05/2013 19:44Posted by Avatarofy
an overall increased stream of monsters


^This
an increased stream of monsters felt soooo much more better in the first stage of 1.0.8 PTR because you could keep up your buffs so well (Especially for WotB or Archon). The next thing is... People feel much better if they can get much bigger killstreaks of monsters.. and this is something that makes you feel happy when you see a killstreak of 600+ on your monitor isntead of like 3 times 150 or so..
Another thing is.. when density is clumpy, often big packs of monsters spawn at the corner of the map and most people won't recognize them 'cause they run mostly through the middle of the area.

best example was weeping hollow pre-nerf. For me.. the clumpy density there now feels like a big lack of gameplay when I have to run like 5-10 sec to the next pack of white monsters.

Every Zone should be like this Blizzard.. pls do it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fv50iHcurM

Sincereley
Ragestyles
Reply Quote
More scattered density with an overall increased stream of monsters,
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]