Mike_W

All the previous packs also came with the game too.

The February 23rd event is on a completely isolated realm too.

Yea, I’m just the worst sometimes eh?

Well this has backfired horribly. I was attempting to gather information on exactly where the line was for them, not spark a debate on the topic. I think it’s safe to say that it’s at least a little bit a subjective term in certain contexts. Yes it can be taken literally and as soon as you have two players involved, it’s technically multiplayer but we often used terms to describe games that fit into general genres that aren’t quite literal.

Take ARPG for example, it’s a different genre than Action RPG even though ARPG means Action RPG. These subtle differences in terminology tell us a lot about the game. In this case, most notably, the camera angle is generally completely different.

I’m sorry to have thrown this so far off topic.

Yes, 1.0 won’t have 12 chapters.

This isn’t news, I’m not sure where the info is but we have said it many times.

Llama has the story straight on this one. We do have more campaign story chapters planned that will launch post-1.0.

And I can’t tell who it is on mobile but judging on the topic and picture, I suspect Andrew is about to have all the details.

Could you define “other stuff” for me please?

I would also just like to confirm that this means that Diablo 1/2/3 are all not multiplayer games right?

I’ve seen this idea that “coop != multiplayer” in a few places now and I’m really interested to know how you would define multiplayer.

If you were to list out the minimum requirements to call any game a multiplayer game, what are those requirements?

I understand how you got there. I’d really appreciate it if we weren’t trying to interpret what was said and just read what was actually said.

I don’t know how they could be compatible either. 4 years ago, I wasn’t trying to suggest that they were either.

That post aged just fine. Me from 4 years ago stands by that post, the whole post.

Yea, that’s what I was talking about.

We’ve just updated the interactable component to have the option to require a fresh click to interact with. It will be used for things like waypoints that can bring up major screen obstructions in the heat of battle.

It catches up faster than you think. Just go for it.

How about, not in a reliably competitive environment yet?

This isn’t something that we are prepared to make a lasting determination on at the moment. Modifying the gameplay experience in a competitive environment is not something that we will likely encourage. It’s a big topic with many different stages. There is probably a fine line somewhere in there that we could draw eventually. Unfortunately, detecting if software like this is being used responsibly vs used at all is almost impossible. For this reason, in some situations, the whole program gets banned as a result of the possible abuse cases.

I know that it doesn’t seem like modifying those things will change gameplay or present the ability to abuse mechanics but it can. It might not be used this way in game right now but allowing it now could preclude us from using the things it removes as game mechanics in the future.

So, for now, we will approach each instance case by case. As we are not in a competitive environment yet, detecting these types of things is not a high pr...

I just bottled my hot sauces this year too. Did an orange one as an experiment. Actually really good.

Sorry, that’s not what I said. Having the width scale based on emphasis is fine. We can’t increased the clickable area outside of the visible item label area. This is because if you have the above situation, you could click on one but it would pick up the other item.

The reason that variable width size on emphasis is ok is that you already have a variable width from item to item based on name length. They all have uniform heights which is the important aspect to keep.

Just a brief note on the topic from discussions and testing that we’ve done. Having some ground item labels being different heights is a non-starter. Unless something dramatic changes, we have no intention of making the height variable from item to item. Similarly, having the clickable area being larger than the visual area is also not going to happen.

Both of these things cause major problems when larger quantities of items are on the ground and without something revolutionary (that I can’t even fathom what it could look like) we aren’t going to add those options.

Having a setting that scales all ground item labels uniformly is possible but we don’t have any plans to implement that feature yet.

It’s almost always a problem in the implementation that prevents it from working. About 2 years ago we changed how unique items apply their unique properties. This led to most of the new ones working much better with Manifest Armor but some are still just incompatible. Most of the old ones were converted to use the new system but some still use the old style.