Talk:Diablo II

Selling items on eBay

From the article:

Interestingly, this trading occurs in-game, and in the real world. Certain "unique" items can sell on Ebay for upwards of $500USD(which mind you, is illegal).

Is this really illegal, and if so, why? Is it based on an end user licence agreement, and if so is there any legal concensus on how enforceable it might be?

Not illegal at all, in the common sense of the word. The worst that could happen is that your access to D2 online is terminated.

But, it is indeed disagreeing with the EULA, and is punishable by bannings. For example, sony prohibited any sales of Everquest items, and they enforced their rule contacting ebay to close any auctions that were selling any everquest items.

The issue of maphacking, however, is very intresting, any thought on that?

12/14/03, I added alot more depth in the hacking of Diablo II. there are HUGE communities that are based on bots and other hacks of Diablo II, so I thought a little history should be added. This might work better as a seperate page, but for now it's a BREIF history of diablo ii hacking. --Raeky

Raeky, buddy, you are just the perfect person to spot to help me with this disputed line:

However, as Blizzard began banning for bots, this was also the most severely hit bot with hundreds of thousands users penalized for using it. (btw, this is legacys_mule) I cannot believe this figure is correct... 100,000+ users penalised? I would say not possible for 100,000+ users to have been 'penalised' "for using d2jsp". any feedback?Pedant 23:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Heh it looks much different from when i added some new stuff about 1.10 release i can't even find that edit --Alexsc25

I found it at last. --Alexsc25Alexsc25

Dudes, sign your name with ~~~ or ~~~~ so your signature appears correctly (with a link to your user page). —Frecklefoot 15:05, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Is Battle.net all that matters?

Hmm, why is so much focus on Battle.net and hacking and not the features introduced by Diablo II, the background story, etc? Looks pretty skewed to me. :-\ The majority of news in Diablo II lies not in hacking and bugged items after all (this existed back in Diablo I too), but in its new features. Maybe I'll start by at least adding info for all classes. :-P Jugalator

I agree. I just assumed a Battle.net fanatic added all that junk. While it is okay, it's not really informative about the actual game—just with the problems with it (and just the multiplayer aspect to be specific). Any more info on the actual game would be very welcome, IMHO. —Frecklefoot 15:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Because there's no reason to play the game on singleplayer: it's like playing CS with bots. Most people don't even play on singleplayer (like me, until I quit after my accounts got screwed over)... ugen64 21:38, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I only played D2 in single player mode. I don't know where you get the "most" assertion you make. If few people even play it, why does Blizzard even go to the trouble of including it in the game? Including a multiplayer version and a single player version is about as much trouble as creating two seperate games. Evidentally, quite a few people play it single player—enough to justify Blizzard going to the trouble of making the single player mode. —Frecklefoot 21:56, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Funny how the text keeps saying things about germans? --pheel 17:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Battle.net is a fundemental aspect of Diablo II (and all Blizzard games now). It is what made diablo ii the success it was. Also the bots and other "hacks" for diablo ii are groundbreaking in the sense that not many other games have and the kind of community behind it to develop such infinitely complex "cheats" or addons (like d2jsp) before for any game. Its only fair that they are at talked about in the article. I also feel that general "blah blah blah details" about the game are not so imporant in the article here. Anyone can go to www.blizzard.com and read all they want about classes and such. Raekyraeky

"Battle.net is what made Diablo II the success it was." Not true. It would've been a huge success even without Battle.net. WarCraft II didn't have Battle.net access and it didn't hurt its sales any (granted WC2 was released before there was Battle.net). It sounds like you want the article to be just about Battle.net and nothing else. I think the layout of the other sections of the article are fine—they give brief descriptions of the classes and such. If one wants in-depth discussions of these aspects, they can go to the Blizzard web site for more information, but brief overviews are very appropriate for the article. However, I think there is a lot of information in the Battle.net section that could be moved to the Battle.net article. —Frecklefoot 15:02, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Battle.net did contribute a lot to the success of D2. One note of games like Warcraft II is in the lack of continuity between games. That is, it doesn't matter if you research all the technologies in the previous games, all that matters is the current game. In D2, you have a character that is continuous across games. Without something like the closed realms, it is impossible to have an environment where players can play multiplayer cooperatively without other people joining in with level 1 characters with insane stats and causing general griefing. Also, it does mean more to have a level 99 character that you can assure your friends is "legit". Anyone can hack an singleplayer / open bnet account to level 99, but it takes "effort" (or just a lot of time wasting) to get to level 99. Multiplayer is a big part of games nowadays, and should not be ignored. Unfortunately a few game designers take this a little too far and totally neglect single player aspects, but that's another discussion.--Mylon 00:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

German Diablo II players

From the section Battle.net Player versus Player (PvP):

• "On the other hand, european leagues like Post Reality think of most German players as rude, impolite and playing lame"
• "A remarkable fact is that mostly german people buy from so-called "itemshops"."

Do Germans have really such a bad reputation in that game the it is noteworthy on an article about it? --Conti|✉ 21:48, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

no, its the Koreans,"gogogogogogogo" , hey, just kidding I play on Asia realm a lot, you can level a player really fast co-op games can be blindingly quick, and those asian guys all seem to be real great at staying close enough to share exp and far enough to have room to kill... which is just as racist a statement. Everybody has some subset of the whole that they 'hate' Me I really hate those hcpk trapassins, load up traps by the waypoint and hostile you when you get there, whilst they sit in town fondling their stashPedant 00:03, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added some info on the Druid and sorceress. Juicyboy 325. 11/15/04

Second Person?

Nitpicking, but... shouldn't the article be written in the more formal third person? Also, is it just me, or do some parts of this article read like a strategy guide? 68.9.205.10

Expansion Set Page

Is there any reason why the expansion set is listed under Lord of Destruction expansion pack, and not under something less ambiguous, such as Diablo II: Lord of Destruction or Diablo II Expansion? If there isn't any oposition to this, it would make sense to change the page on of my suggestions, and also change the link in the Blizzard Entertainment Games category bar.

I realize this isn't they totaly correct place to talk about this, but it looks like no one has ever checked the LoD talk page. --Jkarp 05:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)