After a rather quiet spell, the Blues have come back on the scene with numerous points on various topics.

    But why don’t you guys post on the threads with like 50 pages?

    Take that as a question without any sort of condescending or a-hole tone. Just curious. Do you guys just take that back to the devs without responding to the thread, do you take it back to the devs at all?

    Some of the time, or maybe even most of the time, we find that our presence can actually derail or introduce external elements to conversations. These forums are really here for you guys to talk about the game, for us to watch, and jump in when we have something to share. We’re watching the big threads, we may just not have anything important to add at the time.

    I would like you to respond to the suggestion of allowing more search filters for the auction house 3 just isn’t enough we need at least 6 or more.

    Yeah, we know the auction house needs some UI improvements. I don’t have any specifics to share on what they’d be (although we certainly have extensive lists of your feedback) or when.


    We need more room Bashiok! Can we get a response on getting a few more tab options on our stash please?

    Well, storage requirements can fluctuate pretty drastically from person to person. Each storage slot takes up some amount of real world hard drive storage space (or at least a theoretical amount). We’re constantly evaluating and reevaluating current storage, versus new features, usage trends, etc. I’m not sure if any reevaluations have been done recently as we generally find the current amount of space is generally sufficient even for the most adamant players.

    Some of the stress of the player base comes from the fact that we do not know what is being worked on. I think that is the hardest part when you love a serious like Diablo. Would blizzard be up to a Q & A question chat with the users of Diablo3? It would be great if we could hear from the devs. Diablo was my very first game that got me into liking blizzard games. It is why there is so much passion for the game. The players here just want to feel we matter to the future of Diablo3.

    We did the AMA not tooooo long ago. I’d say we’re due for one soon, but we’re honestly trying to get a bit further into 1.0.4 so we can share more solid details on what the patch will include.

    The community is also aware that a new Community Manager is being hired by blizzard. Does this mean more responses will be given to concerns or is this to just moderator the forum?

    The titles are a bit misleading. We previously had a new management position open, but that was instead broken out into four new positions. The title is “Community Manager” which is misleading because most of you know all of us as “Community Managers” although that isn’t our actual title. The four new positions are actually leadership roles for each franchise (and one for social marketing) that would each lead their own small team of game-dedicated community peeps, and drive the department’s involvement in each game. Right now a lot of us work cross-franchise, but the new organization would instead have dedicated groups. It’s kind of going back to basics for us, and I think will have a lot of benefits to streamline how we work, and hopefully you all bear the brunt of the benefits.

    Why are the devs spending so much time on fixing AH and very small bugs, while the bigger issues get pushed to the back-burner?

    Are you just extensively testing these “fixes” for 1.04?? I think it would help to alleviate a lot of the communities concerns if we knew why the team insists on fixing minor, inconsequential details of the game while major things are still messed up.

    This hits close to home for me as my main is a WD currently in Act 2 inferno. I guess I just dont understand why so many of my useless skills remain unchanged when all if would take is a quick buff to the numbers (hedge magic for example) to make it a more viable option.

    The entire team doesn’t work on one patch until it’s released. There are many different people in many different teams working on many different pieces. For example, 1.0.3b was delayed by weeks for multiple technical issues, but those don’t impact the designers who were busy working on 1.0.4 and beyond.

    They’re busy working on future changes, and once we’re at a place where we can share the details we absolutely will.

    Would it be unrealistic to provide us with a list of changes that you PLAN on putting in 1.0.4, or that you’re TRYING to get into 1.0.4 (and so on?)

    Right now, we know that PvP is coming (but not till later, in 1.1).

    We know some other things are trying to be included in 1.0.4, but we only get what you guys happen to share. Why not share everything you HOPE to fit into 1.0.4, and with the obvious caveat for players that everything won’t make it due to testing/balancing/etc.

    That at least lets the players know that you are addressing some of the problems/concerns we have.

    I just don’t think the pros outweigh the cons. If I tell you now about a change that is ultimately cut and never implemented, what benefit do you gain? What benefit do we gain? Certainly it gives people something to use against us for week/months/years (*coughplayerhousingcough*) about how we’re dumb liars, or whatever. Certainly it might give you something to talk about for a little while. Beyond that I would argue there’s usually not a whole lot to be gained. I’m all for transparency, but there’s a lot to be said about managing when and where.

    A bunch of us in the Bug Report forums are trying to get our Mark of Valor sigils. We have a thread that is four pages long. Basically, some players didn’t get any/all of the sigils and achievements if they changed their BNet email address during the promotion. Personally, I’ve received 2/5, yet did all five. We’ve been waiting for a resolution, yet it’s been 19 days since the sigils were all supposedly flagged. Any help?

    I know we’ve done some investigation. I know that according to the system that sent them they were all sent correctly to the intended recipients for those that were claimed. If the database doesn’t show that someone should have a sigil, there’s no way to verify they actually should. Furthermore there’s unfortunately no easy way to flag accounts, so simply calling our customer service departments isn’t going to result in any quick fixes.

    I can follow up on it though as I believe it’s still something being discussed.

    Update: The blues keep on giving this evening with more follow-up responses which you can find after the break including IAS nerfing, monster affix combos and more…

    In threads that I’ve responded to in the past, there were several follow-up questions and suggestions which I kept seeing over and over again. Rather than go back to those older posts and respond individually, I thought I would round them all up and provide answers here.

    Since these types of posts can draw a lot of attention, please try to keep your responses as civil as possible. In the end, I’m hoping this helps provide some developer insight into a few of the recurring questions from this forum.


    1) You said you’re inherently okay with players stacking certain stats over others. If this is the case, why did you nerf IAS?

    One of the biggest issues we discovered with IAS was that it actively limited build diversity. While IAS was pretty strong on its own, when coupled with certain gear and skill combinations, it simply became too alluring for a lot of players to ignore. So, instead of seeing an increase in gear and skill diversity over time, what we actually saw was more and more players shifting to IAS-focused builds almost exclusively. On a scale large, it was crippling experimentation and skill diversity.

    A lot of players think we reduced the value of IAS because it made characters too powerful. While that’s not a totally unreasonable conclusion to jump to, it’s definitely not true. We don’t think “doing a lot of damage” or “doing too much damage” is enough reason for us to nerf something outright. IAS was an outlier — it’s not that it made characters too powerful, but rather that it caused a few builds to become vastly superior to others. On top of that, it introduced a ton of bugs just due to how fast characters were attacking when stacked to its upper limits.

    The initial iteration of IAS was flawed in many ways. So, in effort to promote skill diversity and remove several game-impacting bugs from the environment, we reduced the value overall. We’re fairly happy with where IAS is right now, as well as skill diversity in general (though we’re going to need to do some additional skill balancing to bring it up to where we want).

    2) So, when are you going to nerf Critical Hit Chance and Critical Hit Damage affixes?

    We’ve no plans to nerf +Crit Chance or +Crit Damage. While +Crit Chance and +Crit Damage are very strong right now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with something being strong. As mentioned above, players doing too much damage is not enough reason for us to bring out the nerf bat. Neither affix is having a negative impact on build diversity (we’re seeing a pretty good balance overall), and there aren’t any technical issues with them being stacked to higher values. It’s something we’re keeping an eye on of course.

    3) Why aren’t monster affix combinations restricted in some way?

    Monster affixes are actually grouped into categories and then restricted based on those categories (to a degree). Our restrictions aren’t as tight as some players have suggested, but in the end we found that adding extra limitations often made Elite pack encounters very predictable and repetitive, which kind of went against our design goal for these types of monsters.

    We know that not all players will see eye-to-eye with us on how these categories are organized, and we expect some criticism and disagreement, especially from such a passionate group of gamers. While we’re happy with where affix combos are right now, we’re open to feedback and especially constructive discussion. 🙂

    Here are the categories:

    “Strong CC” (Limit 1):

    “Defensive” (Limit 1):
    Extra Health
    Health Link
    Missile Dampening
    Invulnerable Minions

    “Aggressive” (No Limit):
    Fire Chains
    Reflects Damage

    4) Is Whimsyshire considered an Act I or Act IV zone?

    It’s considered an Act III/Act IV zone, depending on difficulty. The monsters in Hell are considered Hell – Act IV monsters, and the monsters in Inferno are considered Inferno – Act III/Act IV monsters. The drop rates buffs from June 28 affect the zone accordingly.



    1) Allow to gems to stack up to 100.

    Totally reasonable request. We’re looking into it!

    (We originally set the stack size to 30 so it would fit in with the other “3” gem values. Now that it only requires 2 gems to combine into the next tier and the pattern has been broken, we’ve no issue increasing the base stack size. Good suggestion.)

    2) Allow players to create multiple gems and items with just one click, if you have enough materials.

    No plans right now to implement this kind of automated queuing for crafting.

    3) Allow users to buy multiple health potions with one click.

    Also a cool idea! We’re looking into it.

    4) Allow the Town Healer to heal your active follower too.

    Ditto. We’ll definitely consider this.

    5) Add an option to block follower conversations.

    Understandable annoyance, but no plans at this time to add in an option. Still good feedback!

    You may also like