Actually, I have re-read SDCBloodline's post, and he did not make any statements indicating, as you ascertain, that he misunderstood you. He was merely stating his interpretation of my point, which by the way, was correct.
I mean you no insult when I say this, but I think you must be skimming a bit too fast, because the only one twisting around peoples words here is yourself.
I'm going to try to cut this down to as little as possible to prevent huge posts. But.. for the third time.....
SDCBloodline quotes me and says:
Quote from "SDCBloodline" »
Like you, I mean not to demean your statement, however so, I believe you have misinterrpreted his meaning.
A Successful Gameplay model is an entertainment structurally built with well-balanced mechanics forging a pleasureable experience for all, whether one likes getting PKed or Lossing items.
Economy, in simple terms, is a system of bartering or currency in a society.
The two together can, indeed, create a mixture of a stable trading model, money or items, that promotes a favorful/successful gameplay (catering to the diverse needs clearly stated by reading everyone's input to this thread). Of course, given the balanced gameplay features, assisting in mitigating the over-abundance of items, consequently, lessening the effectiveness of the trading, can reversable cause devestating effects on the game content and/or balance.
With that said, his meaning was to, in my opinion, not encourage transfers from between two or more of your "toons" (via mailbox, etc.). Due to undermining the experiences that one would have during the loot obtainment per character. (Disregard his opinion of the reason but focus on what his message is.)
Which was precisely what I said earlier.
I'm going to give a simple example to make things easier to understand.
You (mahamonti) said You hate cheeseburger because it has vegetables in it. I (flamingdts) say this is wrong because vegetables are good for you. Then, someone(SDCBloodline) tells me that I have misinterpreted your meaning because your meaning was to, in his opinion, not like cheeseburgers with vegetables in it. So I say huh?
I don't want to digress, but seriously.... lets not agree to disagree to agree
I used to agree with you on that one. But playing D2 online for so long completely took away my desire to appeal intellectually to some lardass, obnoxious 13 year old 400 miles away. I enjoy the fact that I can slaughter idiots by the hundreds and not go to jail. Isn't that why we play these games - to have a little break from reality?
Online situations are vastly different from the intimate parent-child relationship you have just described.
I agree... I used to have a lvl 30 chargedin. Bonesnap - the whole deal. I would join act four "kill diablo" games and hostile entire parties. I would take the wp down, wait until they were about half way in and proceed to PK the entire party. Lots of swearing and upset kids would ensue... I would leave the game right after leaving the party dumb founded. Best fun you can have in these kind of games.
I agree... I used to have a lvl 30 chargedin. Bonesnap - the whole deal. I would join act four "kill diablo" games and hostile entire parties. I would take the wp down, wait until they were about half way in and proceed to PK the entire party. Lots of swearing and upset kids would ensue... I would leave the game right after leaving the party dumb founded. Best fun you can have in these kind of games.
I think you misunderstood my post normal. I didn't mean pking people randomly just for kicks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
zsfh-maz of UsWest, 95 BvB king
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
I agree... I used to have a lvl 30 chargedin. Bonesnap - the whole deal. I would join act four "kill diablo" games and hostile entire parties. I would take the wp down, wait until they were about half way in and proceed to PK the entire party. Lots of swearing and upset kids would ensue... I would leave the game right after leaving the party dumb founded. Best fun you can have in these kind of games.
That is extremely screwed up and only fun for one side of the party... your side.
It's like saying murdering people in real life is OK because its fun for you! Granted a real life scenario does not pertain to a game because... it's a game, but the analogy still stands. That story is the EXACT reason why I want to see PK gone. It's not fun at all for the person on the other end... ITS JUST ANNOYING!
You had to be a bastard and ruin a group of people trying to take down Diablo... and why? Just because you had to get off on killing people for no particular reason for your own enjoyment. How would you feel if you were playing a game and I came in and paused the game for 30 seconds every so often. It was fun for me, but its a pain in the ass for you... It doesn't make the game any more fun, but it does make it far more frustrating and less fun.
hostile words are exchanged...someone is killed, they recruit more friends to exact revenge, and all of this occurs WITHIN the game world. Don't you see? This gives the game world a real presence. It brings the game world to life. It is no longer a world manifested purely by inanimate NPCs...it has real player dynamics.
The problem is if D3 were to take the same online characteristics as D2, it is not as dynamic as you want in a persistant MMORPG. Between you, your friend you are travelling with and the PKer, there are only five more people out in that world. Those five people might not even be in the game. Who else can help you now? It's not dynamic because you now have really 4 choices.
1) TP to town, your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer
2) Switch off to another character with godly equipment and hunt the PKer (They wouldn't PK if they didn't have the best items in the game), your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer because now you have to get rid of him, or you simply cannot damage him because his equip are better than yours
3) Call friends for backup which might not be possible if those five slots are taken up by other members questing (and even then your friend's characters may not be able to kill the PKer), your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer
4) Leave the game and remake a private game, your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer
In a persistant world, players come and go. You might find a high level protecting lowbies in areas that have mobs that give exp, or you may have town guards that protect players from PKers. In D2, there are none.
If what you said was true, that griefers controlled the system, then I would agree that it needs a rework. However I completely disagree with that. I played D2 a lot, and I was rarely if ever bothered by griefers.
Examples above are how griefers control the system. People questing do not willingly go into games that say duel to quest because they'll be marked for death immediately. PKers on the other hand enter games with people questing to actively hunt low levels. You can avoid the PKers but it comes at a cost of your enjoyment online.
The problem is if D3 were to take the same online characteristics as D2, it is not as dynamic as you want in a persistant MMORPG. Between you, your friend you are travelling with and the PKer, there are only five more people out in that world. Those five people might not even be in the game. Who else can help you now? It's not dynamic because you now have really 4 choices.
1) TP to town, your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer
2) Switch off to another character with godly equipment and hunt the PKer (They wouldn't PK if they didn't have the best items in the game), your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer because now you have to get rid of him, or you simply cannot damage him because his equip are better than yours
3) Call friends for backup which might not be possible if those five slots are taken up by other members questing (and even then your friend's characters may not be able to kill the PKer), your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer
4) Leave the game and remake a private game, your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer
Your questing would be postponed, not ruined.
Player interaction increasing the dynamics of the virtual world resides in every MMORPG and/or MORPG. Period. (Everquest, WoW, EQOA (yea i played it), Diablo 2, Phantasy Star, and so on) However, you stated the perfect preventive measure - private room. If you don't want the risks of PKers then remove and isolate yourself from the open games while receiving less drops (unless you have friends to fill a room 8/8). Risk a little more (exp and gold) and receive more. Those that risk more get a higher Return on investment, is this not a golden rule?
Point is, Diablo has preventive measures to protect your characters, willing you utilize it.
On a personal note, I am drawn to Diablo because of the MORPG experience. The players (atleast I) are more prone to mingle at a deeper level, given the fewer players per game.
Everyone keeps saying "It's only fun for one person" "I just want to have fun!" etc. Show me a game where every moment is fun-filled and I will show you a racoon that refuses to eat out of the garbage. And honestly that's how life is. Everything is relative, if you don't have some suck ass times you can't appreciate the fun times.
Besides that...almost every online game I can think of has a way to have fun at the expense of others. "I don't like getting killed on halo, its only fun for the person who killed me" , "I don't like losing warcraft 3 games, its only fun for the person who beat me"
We should be advocating less barriers, because it leads to more varied gameplay each time you log on. You don't know what will happen which is fun to me. When a game becomes completely predictable is the day it becomes boring. Whats the reason you all choose multiplayer over single player? The unpredictability of human nature. If you put enough barriers and rules around those players and you start to lose the unpredictability.
Everyone keeps saying "It's only fun for one person" "I just want to have fun!" etc. Show me a game where every moment is fun-filled and I will show you a racoon that refuses to eat out of the garbage. And honestly that's how life is. Everything is relative, if you don't have some suck ass times you can't appreciate the fun times.
Besides that...almost every online game I can think of has a way to have fun at the expense of others. "I don't like getting killed on halo, its only fun for the person who killed me" , "I don't like losing warcraft 3 games, its only fun for the person who beat me"
We should be advocating less barriers, because it leads to more varied gameplay each time you log on. You don't know what will happen which is fun to me. When a game becomes completely predictable is the day it becomes boring. Whats the reason you all choose multiplayer over single player? The unpredictability of human nature. If you put enough barriers and rules around those players and you start to lose the unpredictability.
If I have to repeat my quest from the beginning, is it not ruined?
However, you stated the perfect preventive measure - private room. If you don't want the risks of PKers then remove and isolate yourself from the open games
This is a bad suggestion, as I have already said before.
Point is, Diablo has preventive measures to protect your characters, willing you utilize it.
And it is a very restrictive function.
Quote from "Mastertim" »
"I don't like getting killed on halo, its only fun for the person who killed me" , "I don't like losing warcraft 3 games, its only fun for the person who beat me"
Bad comparison. There are no PvM features in either games while online. Your point is moot.
Bad comparison. There are no PvM features in either games while online. Your point is moot.
Seeing as my point was that there are tons of games where the whole point of the game is to have fun at other peoples expense, and that people still play and enjoy these games, it still stands. And my non-moot point flies directly in the face of all your arguments that "It's only fun for one person so that feature should go".
Which is why there will be a kick/ban from game and already is a mute option.
That's just my opinion though I realize some people would rather just use force to inflict their will upon others.
Personally though I find it a much greater achievement to appeal to someone intellectually than to just kill them and no one really walk away learning anything.
Resorting to violence (even videogame) to solve problems just doesn't seem productive. It's like when your kid skips school so you need to discipline him. Do you: A) Beat the living hell out of him. Explain why it's important to not skip school.
Option A isn't really going to solve anything. He's going to go to school not because he feels it's important, but because he doesn't want to get his ass kicked. Which most likely he'll still skip school.
Option B is the better approach, of course it won't always work either but at least you tried to explain WHY instead of just kicking his ass, leaving him pissed off but none the wiser.
Seeing as my point was that there are tons of games where the whole point of the game is to have fun at other peoples expense, and that people still play and enjoy these games, it still stands. And my non-moot point flies directly in the face of all your arguments that "It's only fun for one person so that feature should go".
They are different genres of games. I don't see what you're comparing honestly. It's like comparing CS to D2. You only kill other people in CS, not so in D2 where players can quest. You only kill people in CS. Did I mention you only kill people in CS? That's the whole point of the game. As for "It's only fun for one person so that feature should go," I said I didn't want PK removed. I just want the system redone as to less restrictions for both sides.
They are different genres of games. I don't see what you're comparing honestly. It's like comparing CS to D2. You only kill other people in CS, not so in D2 where players can quest. You only kill people in CS. Did I mention you only kill people in CS? That's the whole point of the game. As for "It's only fun for one person so that feature should go," I said I didn't want PK removed. I just want the system redone as to less restrictions for both sides.
Once again, the point has nothing todo with how similar the games are or what genre they are from. The point is people DO have fun at other peoples expense all the time, in a variety of games (even sports), so saying something should be taken out because it allows people to have fun at other peoples expense makes no sense. "Its only fun for one person so it should be redone as to less restrictions for both sides" (Which I believe you are actually advocating more restrictions, telling people when and where to PK)
On a personal note, I am drawn to Diablo because of the MORPG experience. The players (atleast I) are more prone to mingle at a deeper level, given the fewer players per game.
Good point.
Quote from ""synthaza"" »
If I have to repeat my quest from the beginning, is it not ruined?
Obviously not ruined, since as you just pointed out, you can repeat it. Ruining your quest would be messing it up so that you could not progress further in the story with the same character and had to create a new character. As far as I know they have designed the system carefully so that griefers cannot ruin a quest for you in this manner, which is why you really have nothing to complain about -- because starting a quest over his wholly insignificant.
Quote from "synthaza" »
Quote:
However, you stated the perfect preventive measure - private room. If you don't want the risks of PKers then remove and isolate yourself from the open games
----
This is a bad suggestion, as I have already said before.
You may have said it before, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. As I see it, if you can't handle playing with other people, you should play privately. When you restrict players' actions in a multiplayer game, you arent getting the full experience of multiplayer. If you restricted peoples actions enough -- didnt let them chat because they might swear, didnt let them attack each other because they might annoy you, didnt let them quest together because they might steal loot...yadda yadda..well, you actually just have an NPC. For most people, who don't play HC, you don't lose anything for dying except a little bit of insignificant gold and a few minutes of time, which can hardly be considered a loss at all.
"Its only fun for one person so it should be redone as to less restrictions for both sides" (Which I believe you are actually advocating more restrictions, telling people when and where to PK)
Are you just randomly putting words in my mouth now? I suggest you read over what I've said instead of making up what you want to hear. Where did that line "It's only fun for one person so that feature should go" line even come from anyways, ability to misread posts? If by advocating restrictions you mean myself pointing out all the flaws and errors of the D2 PK system and show how PKers have all the unrestricted access into games with people questing, then yes.
Quote from "mahamoti" »
Obviously not ruined, since as you just pointed out, you can repeat it. Ruining your quest...
I didn't say ruin THE quest. I said ruin the questING.
As I see it, if you can't handle playing with other people, you should play privately.
So here you should restrict all the players who want to quest online with players without people randomly logging into their games with uber gear and hostiling them? What you said makes perfect sense. "When you restrict players' actions in a multiplayer game, you arent getting the full experience of multiplayer*," except now you are restricting the players that simply want to play online. If I was a carebear and wanted to only play online for questing and PvM, you're telling the carebears to all restrict themselves to private games? You limit them to a tiny bubble online. That's restrictive.
I had a suggestion a long long time ago that would make gold important, I believe it went a little like this:
In Diablo 3 there should be a stash rental service that requires you to make a monthly/weekly payment based on the size of your stash.
1 page of stash stash = free
2 pages = 3000 gold
3 pages = 6000 gold
4 pages = 12000 gold
...
If you cant make 2 payments in a row you lose your extra stash pages, the items on your removed stash pages are auctioned off. Which means, in order to get your items back, you have to be the highest bidder. Auction games would only be privied to 8 people. The person that lost their items would be the one that makes the game, then people are free to join and bid. but there must be more than one player for the auction to begin. This would put a heavy emphasis on gold. It would also mean that in order to take a break from the game you would have to build up enough money to do so [insert blizzards evil smiley face here]
The second part of that idea wasn't part of my original idea, I just came up with that on the fly.
Thats only one, I don't feel like searching for more.
Keep in mind, my original post was geared toward the collective people on the anti-pk side. You in turn jumped on my post saying it was a moot point. Seeing as you defended this way of thinking by trying to throw out my argument against it, it would be right to assume you agreed with this line of thinking because you were defending it.
And yes by advocating PKers not having unrestricted access into games you are in fact advocating more restrictions, less varied gameplay, and predictibility of gameplay.
Wait, are you serious? Does my username say Daemaro now?
Edit: No, I don't agree PK should be thrown out.
First of all, obviously I knew that was not your post, thats why I laid out logic below it as to the reasons I believe you essentially agreed with Daemaro.
Second, lets please define PK please. When I think of PK I think of killing a player who does not want to engage in battle. I think of PvP as mutual fighting between players. So do you want to throw out my definition of PK? From what I can tell, yes you do.
The Pvp style in d2 was great. for those ppl whod always get pked and have their gold taken you can always press esc, save and exit....... but most of you just stayed in the game and kept dying till you got angry... dont blame the pvp system.. the only thing i think they shud change is the fact that a lvl 82 shouldnt be able to hostile a lvl 30....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm going to try to cut this down to as little as possible to prevent huge posts. But.. for the third time.....
SDCBloodline quotes me and says:
Which was precisely what I said earlier.
I'm going to give a simple example to make things easier to understand.
You (mahamonti) said You hate cheeseburger because it has vegetables in it. I (flamingdts) say this is wrong because vegetables are good for you. Then, someone(SDCBloodline) tells me that I have misinterpreted your meaning because your meaning was to, in his opinion, not like cheeseburgers with vegetables in it. So I say huh?
I don't want to digress, but seriously.... lets not agree to disagree to agree
Blizzard
Valve
:thumbsup:
I agree... I used to have a lvl 30 chargedin. Bonesnap - the whole deal. I would join act four "kill diablo" games and hostile entire parties. I would take the wp down, wait until they were about half way in and proceed to PK the entire party. Lots of swearing and upset kids would ensue... I would leave the game right after leaving the party dumb founded. Best fun you can have in these kind of games.
I think you misunderstood my post normal. I didn't mean pking people randomly just for kicks.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
It's like saying murdering people in real life is OK because its fun for you! Granted a real life scenario does not pertain to a game because... it's a game, but the analogy still stands. That story is the EXACT reason why I want to see PK gone. It's not fun at all for the person on the other end... ITS JUST ANNOYING!
You had to be a bastard and ruin a group of people trying to take down Diablo... and why? Just because you had to get off on killing people for no particular reason for your own enjoyment. How would you feel if you were playing a game and I came in and paused the game for 30 seconds every so often. It was fun for me, but its a pain in the ass for you... It doesn't make the game any more fun, but it does make it far more frustrating and less fun.
1) TP to town, your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer
2) Switch off to another character with godly equipment and hunt the PKer (They wouldn't PK if they didn't have the best items in the game), your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer because now you have to get rid of him, or you simply cannot damage him because his equip are better than yours
3) Call friends for backup which might not be possible if those five slots are taken up by other members questing (and even then your friend's characters may not be able to kill the PKer), your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer
4) Leave the game and remake a private game, your questing is hereby ruined by a PKer
In a persistant world, players come and go. You might find a high level protecting lowbies in areas that have mobs that give exp, or you may have town guards that protect players from PKers. In D2, there are none.
Examples above are how griefers control the system. People questing do not willingly go into games that say duel to quest because they'll be marked for death immediately. PKers on the other hand enter games with people questing to actively hunt low levels. You can avoid the PKers but it comes at a cost of your enjoyment online.
Your questing would be postponed, not ruined.
Player interaction increasing the dynamics of the virtual world resides in every MMORPG and/or MORPG. Period. (Everquest, WoW, EQOA (yea i played it), Diablo 2, Phantasy Star, and so on) However, you stated the perfect preventive measure - private room. If you don't want the risks of PKers then remove and isolate yourself from the open games while receiving less drops (unless you have friends to fill a room 8/8). Risk a little more (exp and gold) and receive more. Those that risk more get a higher Return on investment, is this not a golden rule?
Point is, Diablo has preventive measures to protect your characters, willing you utilize it.
On a personal note, I am drawn to Diablo because of the MORPG experience. The players (atleast I) are more prone to mingle at a deeper level, given the fewer players per game.
Besides that...almost every online game I can think of has a way to have fun at the expense of others. "I don't like getting killed on halo, its only fun for the person who killed me" , "I don't like losing warcraft 3 games, its only fun for the person who beat me"
We should be advocating less barriers, because it leads to more varied gameplay each time you log on. You don't know what will happen which is fun to me. When a game becomes completely predictable is the day it becomes boring. Whats the reason you all choose multiplayer over single player? The unpredictability of human nature. If you put enough barriers and rules around those players and you start to lose the unpredictability.
Well said.
This is a bad suggestion, as I have already said before.
And it is a very restrictive function.
Bad comparison. There are no PvM features in either games while online. Your point is moot.
Seeing as my point was that there are tons of games where the whole point of the game is to have fun at other peoples expense, and that people still play and enjoy these games, it still stands. And my non-moot point flies directly in the face of all your arguments that "It's only fun for one person so that feature should go".
the proper answer is C: all of the above
gamma11 > east
They are different genres of games. I don't see what you're comparing honestly. It's like comparing CS to D2. You only kill other people in CS, not so in D2 where players can quest. You only kill people in CS. Did I mention you only kill people in CS? That's the whole point of the game. As for "It's only fun for one person so that feature should go," I said I didn't want PK removed. I just want the system redone as to less restrictions for both sides.
Once again, the point has nothing todo with how similar the games are or what genre they are from. The point is people DO have fun at other peoples expense all the time, in a variety of games (even sports), so saying something should be taken out because it allows people to have fun at other peoples expense makes no sense. "Its only fun for one person so it should be redone as to less restrictions for both sides" (Which I believe you are actually advocating more restrictions, telling people when and where to PK)
Good point.
Obviously not ruined, since as you just pointed out, you can repeat it. Ruining your quest would be messing it up so that you could not progress further in the story with the same character and had to create a new character. As far as I know they have designed the system carefully so that griefers cannot ruin a quest for you in this manner, which is why you really have nothing to complain about -- because starting a quest over his wholly insignificant.
You may have said it before, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. As I see it, if you can't handle playing with other people, you should play privately. When you restrict players' actions in a multiplayer game, you arent getting the full experience of multiplayer. If you restricted peoples actions enough -- didnt let them chat because they might swear, didnt let them attack each other because they might annoy you, didnt let them quest together because they might steal loot...yadda yadda..well, you actually just have an NPC. For most people, who don't play HC, you don't lose anything for dying except a little bit of insignificant gold and a few minutes of time, which can hardly be considered a loss at all.
Are you just randomly putting words in my mouth now? I suggest you read over what I've said instead of making up what you want to hear. Where did that line "It's only fun for one person so that feature should go" line even come from anyways, ability to misread posts? If by advocating restrictions you mean myself pointing out all the flaws and errors of the D2 PK system and show how PKers have all the unrestricted access into games with people questing, then yes.
I didn't say ruin THE quest. I said ruin the questING.
So here you should restrict all the players who want to quest online with players without people randomly logging into their games with uber gear and hostiling them? What you said makes perfect sense. "When you restrict players' actions in a multiplayer game, you arent getting the full experience of multiplayer*," except now you are restricting the players that simply want to play online. If I was a carebear and wanted to only play online for questing and PvM, you're telling the carebears to all restrict themselves to private games? You limit them to a tiny bubble online. That's restrictive.
*Your words, not mine.
In Diablo 3 there should be a stash rental service that requires you to make a monthly/weekly payment based on the size of your stash.
1 page of stash stash = free
2 pages = 3000 gold
3 pages = 6000 gold
4 pages = 12000 gold
...
If you cant make 2 payments in a row you lose your extra stash pages, the items on your removed stash pages are auctioned off. Which means, in order to get your items back, you have to be the highest bidder. Auction games would only be privied to 8 people. The person that lost their items would be the one that makes the game, then people are free to join and bid. but there must be more than one player for the auction to begin. This would put a heavy emphasis on gold. It would also mean that in order to take a break from the game you would have to build up enough money to do so [insert blizzards evil smiley face here]
The second part of that idea wasn't part of my original idea, I just came up with that on the fly.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Thats only one, I don't feel like searching for more.
Keep in mind, my original post was geared toward the collective people on the anti-pk side. You in turn jumped on my post saying it was a moot point. Seeing as you defended this way of thinking by trying to throw out my argument against it, it would be right to assume you agreed with this line of thinking because you were defending it.
And yes by advocating PKers not having unrestricted access into games you are in fact advocating more restrictions, less varied gameplay, and predictibility of gameplay.
Edit: No, I don't agree PK should be thrown out.
First of all, obviously I knew that was not your post, thats why I laid out logic below it as to the reasons I believe you essentially agreed with Daemaro.
Second, lets please define PK please. When I think of PK I think of killing a player who does not want to engage in battle. I think of PvP as mutual fighting between players. So do you want to throw out my definition of PK? From what I can tell, yes you do.