Talk:Diablo II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Removal of Trivia

Reasons behind why the Trivial assets, such as random things that are cool and hidden within the game, were removed under which I do not know why, but I feel as if they cause no harm and should be told, so Players and others alike can realize these views. Only a minor conception, I know, but I feel as if they should be. Possibilites to add more of these would be simple, and I am sure somewhere out there someone would love to see a Compiled Listing of these finds.


[edit] Distinction between info and strategy

Even though strategies used in a game does play an important role, I don't think that the strategies should be on this page. This is not a strategy guide, it should give information about the game, not neccesarily how it should be played. If strategies have to be present, we should at least get some standardised structure to place it in, otherwise it becomes messy. The ideal would be to create a "Diablo 2 Strategies" section or page, and move everything to that section/page. Bertus 13:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, with you. I think the main issue is that character build evaluations are a rather subjective topic (since it is often based on an individual's gaming experience rather than some hard cold facts) and as such doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia. I think a list of common builds, with a very brief description of what they are (example: "Meteorb sorceress: A sorceress mainly relying on the meteor, frozen orb and fireball spells. The rest of the points are typically spent on the appropriate synergies and masteries along with teleport and static charge. Often used for Magic Finding.") would be appropriate, along with the explanation of other common game terms, but the builds' strengths and weaknesses should not be discussed here. Artagas, 10:36 23 Jun 2005 (CET)

While it is true that this is an encyclopedic article and not a strategy guide, I do feel that much of the information on this page is encyclopedic. Describing the pros and cons of the different characters is information which allows the reader to interpret the information on his/her own. I would consider things such as "how to beat" or "where to find" to be more strategy. This article is clean for now.--TheAznSensation 2 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

The "pros & cons" are not strategy guides. When I rewrote those sections a while ago, I tried to portray the evolution of the character builds over time, not how to build them. A strategy guide would be "to build a javazon, invest 7 points into pierce, max lightning fury, get a physical damage merc for lightning immunes; forget about magic and rare javelins, Titan's Revenge is far superior; there is some dispute about the ideal Valkyrie skill level...". I believe it would be far more interesting five years from now to know how the classes evolved over time. The evolution of battle.net is a piece of Blizzard history that should be preserved, while strategy guides only last as long as the actual game and become useless afterwards. ... @ Artagas: those build evaluations are in fact cold hard facts. The way it works is that when a new patch was released or a new discovery made, as soon as the pioneers decided that build x was "overpowered" and build y was "useless", other people who hadn't even tried them parroted the pioneers' opinions and they became an objective reality. The overwhelming consensus in 1.09 was that druids were "useless", so nobody made a druid and those who did fully expected their character to be "useless", which of course made them seem more useless than they really were, which in turn reinforced the stigma. Therefore, the "pros & cons" are the "voice of battle.net", not my "personal opinion". This is supposed to be a historical article, not Laz's Opinion of Diablo 2. FYI, I personally consider Shockwave to be the most overpowered skill in the game. BrotherLaz, 19:35 9 Jul 2005 (GMT)

I like the structure a lot more like it is now. It's not perfect, but it's a LOT better than it was at the beginning. I agree that the evolution of the game should be captured, since it is valueble information. (Game developers and Blizzard themselves can use it, which is the point of an encyclopedia.) I think in all cases the structure of any article should allow any reader to skip the parts he isn't interested in. Like it is not, you can read what a Barb IS, and skip the Pro's and Cons. This was impossible previously. A person who knows nothing about D2 was forced to read rather technical D2 stuff to find out what a Sorceress was. Bertus 07:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote all of the class sections. Barring a revert or vandalism, they should be a lot better now.BrotherLaz, 22:55 6 August 2005 (GMT)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
I far prefer the social atmosphere of single player and I'm am an extravert --Non-User Olleicua
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)

I am in favor of putting as much useful info on wikipedia as possible. Also I think organization is critical to allow users to see what they are interested in. have three pages/sections for, strategy guide, hacking/Cheating history, and Game Concept. I don't think any of us can judge what information is helpful to Wikipedia and we should all try and be open minded about it. --Non-user Olleicua

I agree that battle.net is important, but another aspect that i think is often ignored is the storyline. Most players just rush through the whole game without realizing that there is an intricate story behind it all, such as the war between hell and heaven, andt he history of the prime evils. Maybe include more information on that? 66.41.59.162 23:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 find the relevance and necessity of an addition like this, highly unrequired, so what if they commit such actions, such to be that it would not require an Article. -- LordAndrew


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

[edit] 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

It sure seems like it is. tyler nelson 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

- The 1.11 quest is only for expansion. It shouldnt be on the Diablo II Page.


[edit] Tesseract

Why has the Horadric Cube been described as a tesseract? Isn't a tesseract 4 dimensional? Aligma 17:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess because the cube is bigger on the inside than the outside? Makgraf 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That's why... it desn't meet the 3-dimensional standards... and the inside is larger than the outside. --RPC (Peytonio) 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diablo II items

I think there should be somewhere a list of unique, set items with their proporties, just as all pokemon are listed in wiki. Exe 14:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to start adding set items, would there be a problem with this? Eav 11:37, 23 Nov 2005.

I'd suggest you go add them to the Diablo wiki on Wikicities] instead... but that's just me. nae'blis (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than adding the items to this website, I suggest people simply link to the Arreat Summit, the website which gives a comprehensive listing of everything Diablo 2:

http://www.battle.net/diablo2exp

[edit] Clean-up tag

Yeah, I'm the same guy from "Second Person?"

Some of the sections (particularly the Sorceress section) are written in second-person and look as if they belong in a strategy guide. A simple description of the character classes and their strengths and weaknesses serves the article better than step-by-step instructions to create an "uber" sorceress. TaintedMustard 23:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think each character should have a sub section. For instance, the sorceress should have a Sorceress Strategies sub section. Alternatively, all strategy related info can be moved to a completely new "Diablo 2 Strategies" page. Bertus 11:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. D2 strategies redirect to a Strategy page (as Bertus says). And Druid/Assassin info should actually belong in Diablo II: Lord of Destruction and not here... suggestions? Debroglie 3 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Agreed here, as well. This page needs serious work; the class information sections read like strategy guides, as is mentioned, and while the evolution of certain builds might be interesting, it should be relegated to its own section rather than tossed in with the rest. The article should be something that the average reader can pick up and look at without having to trip over terms like "javazon" and "skelliemancer." Ajudd 1 Feb 2006

- Just as an idea (and yes, I am replying to my own edit), perhaps a lot of the strategy / build information should be merged to the DiabloWiki, which is linked at the bottom of the page?Andy 09:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corpse explosion

a really minor issue, but i wanted it to be fixed. The skill specific part stated that CE damage scales up with the number of players. However, that is not the case, so i changed it. To confirm, I asked in this thread http://forums.diabloii.net/showthread.php?t=358361 where one of the biggest skelemancer experts answered, saying that it indeed does not scale up. (would be insane if it did anyways) - Artagas

Yes, you are correct, this scaling was removed in the current patch 1.11, but the scaling was there in 1.10. The Grim Reaper 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please merge

Please merge the following content into the article somewhere. The vfd consensus for the article in question is for it to be merged here. The article for the meantime has been redirected. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

In the fictional universe of Diablo 2, the Priests of Rathma are a segregated group of magi that study the concept of mortality. Living deep underground, these magi have learned how to raise the undead to fight for them. Through their wisdom, these "Necromancers" have learned not to question the threshold of mortality, but to accept it as a part of life. The Necromancer's skill tree is based around summoning creatures and cursing the minions of the undead. This character class sports expertise in wands and daggers.
While this has been included for a while, locationally it makes no sense. There is a discontinuous jump from strategy to storyline here. Suggestions on moving this to a different area or better delineating it? Kickstart70 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should delete it. Makgraf 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulk move of Pros & Cons

The Pros & Cons of the five original classes do not really fit here. They're LoD based and don't apply to Classic DII. I'm rewriting them and moving everything related to content past 1.07 to the Lord of Destruction page. Someone else who still plays Classic DII can write the rest from a Classic point of view. Don't scream vandalism, please. It's for the good of humanity ;)

[edit] How do you pronounce Diablo

Die-a-bloe, or dee-ablow?

Pece Kocovski 02:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ordinarily in American English, I believe it is the latter. nae'blis (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Deeablow, but at the same time, die-a-bolikal. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh and in-game voices say "Dee-a-blow". -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It is pronounced dee a blo but not spelled that way.

It's diablo (dee ah blow). --RPC (Peytonio) 01:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colenzo

There are no objects called the "Carin Stones" in Diablo II. Rather, they are the "Cairn Stones". I do not believe that this is meant as a tribute to Karin Colenzo. The actual tribute to her is in one of the warcries of the Fallen type enemies - they yell "Colenzo" at intervals. There is also a boss Fallen Shaman named "Colenzo" that appears at the Throne of Destruction in Act V of Lord of Destruction.

Cairn is pronounced Carin (or Karin) in the game, so it is possible it could have come from Karin Colenzo. --RPC (Peytonio) 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right. A cairn is a manmade pile of stones. And that's what they are in the game. It's just coincidence that someone on the development team has a name slightly similar to the real-world word for what that is. It should be taken out of the article.

Also on the subject of Easter Eggs, the unique Dirk-class weapon is called "The Diggler", a clear reference to Dirk Diggler of "Boogie Nights". The "Tarnhelm" is a reference to the opera "Das Rhinegold" of "Der Ring des Nibelungen" (aka The Ring Cycle). The "Buriza-Do Kyanon" is Engrish for "Blizzard Cannon". There are many, many others.

[edit] New Game Concepts section needs to be dissolved.

No one seems to have noticed that there is both a New Game Concepts section and a Changes From Diablo I section. These wouldn't necessarily be redundnant sections as they are named, but New Game Concepts doesn't talk about altogether new game concepts-- it just talks about changes from Diablo I, as per its first sentence. And actually, most of what it talks about are item details, which don't belong on this article at all. I mean, it has a whole page of statistics on gems? Good Lord. I call for the removal of the New Game Concepts section, merging only the critical information from it into the Changes from Diablo I section, and any further details being put in a separate page.

This article as a whole is too long for an overview on Diablo II. What's written for Amazon is a nicely-sized paragraph; other character classes have disproportionately much detail, including strategies, which also don't belong on this article.

Having played Diablo I but not II, I'm not qualified to make these changes myself, but I can tell they're strongly needed.

[edit] Secret Cow Level --- Really a Secret?

I removed this section and put it in the separate article Cow Level. Reasons:

  • It's too detailed for this article
  • It really should be a secret in some sense -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Praetis (talk • contribs) 12/21/2005 02:51:56 UTC (UTC)
I disagree; this game has been out long enough that any secret about the Cow Level is long since approaching irrelevance, and putting it somewhere else (without linking it, no less) just makes it harder to find. We're an encyclopedia, not a strategy guide, and should be striving for completeness. nae'blis (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


You're right. I was thinking of linking it. How about for the sake of respecting the level of detail, leaving it separate but adding this into the list of "Changes from Diablo I" section:

There actually is a secret cow level.

Even if everybody "allegedly" knows about it, isn't it still a spoiler? You know, like Aeris dies! TotalTommyTerror 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler tags are the best we can do. Beyond that the needs of the encycopedia outweigh the possibility of "spoiling" it for someone who has been living under a rock for the last decade. Even then, who found about about the cow level without having it "spoiled" for them. This isnt really a spoiler in the same sense. This should be merged asap66.112.37.194 04:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I had edited the definition of the origin of the cow level to the correct statement; that is, it originated when the rather close-knit group of people in #EFNet IRC (circa 1995-97) was suddenly hit with an influx of people when the Beta/Demo was released, and we essentially made up a story to make them do stupid things to amuse us. Since I included my name in the post as one of the primary originators (which was true) some overzealous full-time wiki editor deemed it 'vandalism' and removed it. Since there is no documented resource I can cite regarding this, I can't cite anyone who would know; that is Kingy, Leavandor, Bearright, Kythorn, or maybe ElJay or another op at the time, therefore I can not correct the post. Do I really need to resurrect the dead husk of the Scorched site?

Of note: Haven't gone to EFNet for years, and the site I mentioned has been dead for just as long. I was promoting nothing except getting the right story there. RedFalcon 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Story and Characters

I think these are really interesting. Confusingly the article refers to the cinematic and the game story without differentiating them. then there are seperate character articles that have some but not all of the information. I'd like to see this improved.

[edit] images

copyright status? 66.112.37.194 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing about mods?

The most play I've experienced has very little to do with Vanilla LOD, and it's pretty weird about no mods being mentioned on the wiki, as modders taken the game and run with it since Blizzard has moved on to the bigger and bigger. The Zy-El mod for instance is an augmentation designed to improve the single player game, and is a much deeper experience due to the item crafting and increased difficulty.

- I'll add a section about mods to the LORD OF DESTRUCTION page. This is the regular D2 page. I know the disambiguation page doesn't list LoD and everyone ends up here, but let's just say this is the page for everything that doesn't require or involve LoD. -BrotherLaz

[edit] How is it possable to hack a game?

I have heard a lot of talk about hacking this game but how is it done? I dont want a specific answer (i dont want to do it) but how can it be done?-Fiarrsturm 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just like with any other form of hacking, hacking a game like Diablo II can be acheived through both instinct and skill. Someone with enough knowledge of the OS that Diablo II is running on, could presumably find out where certain data is stored in memory and alter it. That is what 'trainers' do.
Things such as the various 'maphacks' work on the same principle, but are (usually) restricted to merely making the entire map visible, though many also include related exploits.
On the 'character editor' side of things, people with plenty of experience in reverse engineering can figure out how the *.d2s file format works. People with plenty of time can simply figure it out through trial and error.
On top of all those methods, someone with access to a decompiler could always find out exactly what is going on, and use that knowledge to create a crack, or any of the above hacks with relative ease.
I hope that explains it well enough for you. --60.227.18.58 03:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting the article?

This article has gotten quite large, and it seems to me a split would be in order. My proposal would be to split out the Character Classes and New Game Concepts into a new article, which we could call Diablo II Strategy. Any thoughts on this idea? -- MisterHand 23:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I kind of wonder if strategy belongs on Wikipedia at all. There are almost infinite combinations people prefer, and they tend to get non-encyclopedial/POV. A short description of the classes plus any storyline that is associated with them would be better.Kickstart70 00:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree, actually. How about this less drastic proposal: we split off only the Character Classes section into a new article titled Diablo II Character Classes? By not putting "Strategy" into the title of the new article we wouldn't be encouraging folks to try and turn the article into a full-fledged strategy guide. -- MisterHand 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the strategy guide stuff could be largely excised without harming the article. A little bit of theory about the differences between characters is one thing, but we're not trying to recreate the Tomb of Knowledge here... -- nae'blis (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Credits

First off, kudos to Phorque for splitting off the online stuff to a new article. But this article is still quite long. I'm looking at the Game Credits section, and I really can't see it's value in an encyclopedia article. Unless there are objections, I'm going to remove it (with the exception of the notable folks, such as Bill Roper, who I'll mention up higher in the article). -- MisterHand 15:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Since there were no objections, I've gone ahead and made the change. -- MisterHand 13:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
MisterHand, while Metzen is a notable, it's hard to reckon he was in the context of this game (you have to dig past 60 names to get to his). Michio Okamura appears in the list of 13 character artists.
Fair enough, it's probably more important that Diablo II is mentioned in their individual articles than vice-versa. -- MisterHand 20:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried to reflect the most major roles this time. I could see adding leads, but the list starts getting unweildy again....

Here we go again with the credits, this time in the sidebar. I'm going to change it to what was agreed on before....

[edit] Merge of Mastadex Hero Editor

See Talk:Mastadex Hero Editor#Cleanup/merge for more rationale. I find it funny that article was kept in AfD, now we need to live with it. Anyone got any ideas on what to do? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know. This article is too big as it is. I don't want to be adding even more content. -- MisterHand 16:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It really doesn't seem to me that every piece of software available is worthy of it's own article, but neither is that software a good fit into a game page (especially, as MisterHand says, since this page is too big already). My suggestion would be to merge it into a page specifically about game editors. Perhaps a page called Character editor to go along with Level editor and listed on Editor (software)...and then link to that Character editor page from the Diablo II page. --Kickstart70 16:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, that seems like a good idea. I might be starting Character editor article and work this thing into it. Sorry, I noticed this article is big, but I didn't notice how huge this is. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section merge

Anyone have any thoughts on merging the sections New Game Concepts and Changes from Diablo I (probably the former into the latter)? --Kickstart70 16:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That would make good sense to me. -- MisterHand 16:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diablo II not expansion

I think this article should be rewritten with all references to the Lord of Destruction expasion pack removed as the expasion already has its own article.--Metmop 19:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"All" is a pretty powerful word; where exactly do you see LoD being referenced too much? It is mentioned 14 times in the article, and some of those could be removed, but to call for a rewrite is pretty extreme. EVula 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

More specificly, remove talk of items that can only spawn in LoD, such as runes and jewels. Also individual items listed in the amazon and necromancer character "Strategies" The Pademonium Quest can be removed as that is no part of Diablo II, but DClone could be mentioned.

[edit] Looking for...

Looking for people who are at least somewhat familiar with the wiki concept (one edit here is enough) and interested in the upcoming Diablo III. Leave a note on my user talk page if interested. ℑilver§ℑide 04:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fistadin

I think this article lacks in its leaving out any mention of the mighty Fist of the Heavens-focused paladins. While that build was nerfed with the coming of 1.07 (LoD), it was the most powerful PvP build I've ever seen. Hammerdins are mentioned, and they were nowhere near as popular, or powerful, as Fistadins, before the nerf. Plus, whenever a Fistadin entered a PvP game, most people would leave :) That deserves mention.


Please don't do that. I will simply state that with the current patch a FoH'er is not a good dueler anymore.The Grim Reaper 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to mention it. Simple.

[edit] IGN lets it slip?

Not article worthy, more for anyone who wants a little ray of hope if they don't think Diablo 3 is coming up, have a peaksie at [1]. It's an advert for IGN insider subscription, but it happens to have Diablo III alongisde a lot of other things that have been confirmed to be at E3 2006. You never know, it might not be that far away. Gaz 18:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes from Diablo I

I just removed the following, if anyne knows what could be meant, please clarify and read

  • Increases in the average amount of monster, player and item attributes
  • Simplified, icon based store system, replacing the text based system

134.130.4.46 05:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] glitches

i think we should include some common glitches like the str 1 i hear noobs complaining all the time of how to do that -NOOBLET

[edit] Removed Diablo III E3 Comment

Removed the statement about announcing Diablo 3 at E3 in May, since E3 is now past and it was not announced. Sentance removed read: "possible at E3 in May," 70.126.56.64 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the D3 section completely, becouse I think It adds nothing to the D2 article. SevenMass 14:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ladder Season

Hi, Just a concerned fan wanting to know when the next ladder season will begin. I know form last years reset that it sucks but many of my friends would like to kno as well.

E-mail me at angrytoy_soldier6611@yahoo.com with any info regarding this situation.

         There has been no information declared about the next reset, as with all the others, you only get a week or so advance knowledge and they come as a big suprise to many.The Grim Reaper 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stone of Jordan

I'd like to see an article specifically about the long and storied history of the Stone of Jordan. No other single item in a video game has ever been such an object of contention that I'm aware of. This game built an entire economy out of SoJs. It was rampantly duplicated, then Blizzard's dupe-deleting policy made it decline in value, then people got around that, and it rose in value, then they added the Uber-Diablo that only appeared when you sold SoJs to vendors, then players started an IRC channel to track which servers were selling the most SoJs, etc. There's easily enough sordid history behind this item that I believe it warrants its own article, if only as an interesting study in sponateous generation of an artificial economy. It was never intended by the developpers that the item become a currency, but it pretty much did. All other items were valued in terms of how many SoJs they were worth. If I had reliable sources other than my own experience, I'd start such an article myself. But surely this sort of thing must be documented somewhere. --Lurlock 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what you've just written would be the limit of the article. You'd be lucky to get a meaty paragraph out about it, without blatently pasting loads of into on stats, drop rate and other irrelevant stuff. Andymc 17:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the general feelings of Lurlock, in fact I wonder if there doesn't already exist somewhere an article about economics in MMORPG? Because there certainly are already numerous academic articles already written about it. Mathmo Talk 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've been reading more I've came across exactly the article you are looking for to include this into, Mudflation. Mathmo Talk 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] need copyright tag

hey im new,and dont know how to tag an image. can anyone tag it for me? its in the collector's edition section

[edit] need correction

The following is incorrect and needs a rewrite- On April 1st, 1999, a Diablo II Screenshot of the Week featured cows fighting. People wondered if the screenshot was an April Fool's joke or if there really was a Secret Cow Level planned for Diablo II. It turned out that there was a cow level in the sequel, Diablo III

As of Aug 2006 Diablo III has still not been announced. Barrel-rider 03:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a mistake, it should read Diablo II Andymc 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What happend to the townsfolk of Tristram?

What happend townsfolk of Tristram? I now, what happend to Cain the Elder (Deckard Cain), Griswold the Blacksmith and Wirt, but what about others? (Pepin the Healer, Farnham the Drunk, Gillian, Ogden and Adria the Witch) anyone now?

180888 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

if you look in the bottom right corner of tristram, you see a corpse on the ground where farnham would've been. as for pepin, ogden, adria, and gillian, i can't say. Parsecboy 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to remove the sections on the Assassin and Druid from this entry. Given that they are both only available within the expansion (and are represented on that page), the Assassin entry was of poor quality and the Druid heading was blank.

[edit] Necromancer class listing

I cannot seem to find the Necromancer class listing along with the others... as if someone removed it by mistake. can anyone fix this problem and include in the info the Necromancers being Priests of Rathma.

Some anon editor removed it, it's back now. --Pentasyllabic 17:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Up to date sales?

Anyone feel like finding out current sales on Diablo II? The last update appears to be from the year 2000.. It's about 7 years later, and if I am not mistaken, this game is STILL being sold in almost all gaming stores. I'd very interesting to see sales figures, myself.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/a/Talk%7EDiablo_II_1bf5.html"