lol, ok for WoW, but check Warcraft I & II PvP Strongly focused, Diablo I still PvM with a rid feature of PvP, so we can't compare 2 differents games.
Warcraft 1 and 2 are RTS, i dont know if you can call it pvp... I have never heard anyone use the term pvp for an rts before. Atleast not as in the aspect of pvp in the game.
Im not sure what you are trying to say, but what i meant from my last post was that Blizzard learned a lot from WoW, including how to make a better pvp system and game play. That will be implemented in D3. Improved, changed to suite the game, and implemented.
Warcraft 1 and 2 are RTS, i dont know if you can call it pvp... I have never heard anyone use the term pvp for an rts before. Atleast not as in the aspect of pvp in the game.
Yes yes, you never heard anyone use the term pvp, because it's too obvious, RTS is only players versus players or versus computer (AI playing like a player) So yes RTS is a big fat PvP.
Blizzard learned a lot from WoW, including how to make a better pvp system and game play.
Blizzard learn about every game released... not only their games.
Yes yes, you never heard anyone use the term pvp, because it's too obvious, RTS is only players versus players or versus computer (AI playing like a player) So yes RTS is a big fat PvP.
Blizzard learn about every game released... not only their games.
I dont know man, you are arguing in the sake of making an argue, cant keep up with that. lol.
Lets just say that the pvp system in d3 will probably rock.
Yes yes, you never heard anyone use the term pvp, because it's too obvious, RTS is only players versus players or versus computer (AI playing like a player) So yes RTS is a big fat PvP.
Yeah, yeah. Its PvP. But you are just mixing everything up. You never get the point of a discussion right and randomly argue things or spit random unrelated stuff with words I doubt you have any idea how to use.
Maybe you should practice making sense and making that thousand post of yours relevant more than 5% of the time.
Yeah, yeah. Its PvP. But you are just mixing everything up. You never get the point of a discussion right and randomly argue things or spit random unrelated stuff with words I doubt you have any idea how to use.
Maybe you should practice making sense and making that thousand post of yours relevant more than 5% of the time.
ehhhh ok if you want...
I just answer...
I always explain my point with good logic arguments, read the thread, he just said RTS isn't PvP... all that because he compared Diablo 3 PvP with WoW PvP... We haven't reason to compare 2 kind of game...
So before denigrate, know what you're talking about...
5%... can you give me the report and the calcul of that ??
ehhhh ok if you want...
I just answer...
I always explain my point with good logic arguments, read the thread, he just said RTS isn't PvP... all that because he compared Diablo 3 PvP with WoW PvP... We haven't reason to compare 2 kind of game...
So before denigrate, know what you're talking about...
5%... can you give me the report and the calcul of that ??
I did not say that RTS is not PVP. Read my posts carefully.
I did not compare D3 to WoW even though i could. I was simply talking about the fact that Blizzard have learned alot in the last few years. The things that they learned include an overall better pvp system, which is likely to be implemented on to D3.
Why do all my threads end up in arguments? Seriously guys, I can sense that this getting heated up, so please, I don't want my threads to be closed. Thanks!
But still, Blizzard has said that PvP will be a great focus in Diablo 3, so we can end the discussion there. I just want to know how they are going to set it up because the PvP in Diablo 2, even though it's fun as hell, has too many flaws. My first post in this thread showed how I would try to make it better.
I was simply talking about the fact that Blizzard have learned alot in the last few years. The things that they learned include an overall better pvp system, which is likely to be implemented on to D3.
yeah I agree, I think they haven't choice to learn, they can't do a step back... It's the same thing like D2 PvP learn from D1 PvP... I'm sure D3 PvP will be better than D2!
Hmmm... The rewards would be cool. But they could be something like achievements and put into your own personal public hall of trophies. Achievements could be like "Iron Fist", which would mean kill someone with only one hit. And that could have levels like "Peasant", which would be against a low level or not a qualified dueler. Then there could be a "Knight", where you kill someone with one hit who is in your level range and a qualified dueler. Then you can finally have the "Golden Warrior", which means you one hitted a guy who is ungodly good or something.
Hmmm... The rewards would be cool. But they could be something like achievements and put into your own personal public hall of trophies. Achievements could be like "Iron Fist", which would mean kill someone with only one hit. And that could have levels like "Peasant", which would be against a low level or not a qualified dueler. Then there could be a "Knight", where you kill someone with one hit who is in your level range and a qualified dueler. Then you can finally have the "Golden Warrior", which means you one hitted a guy who is ungodly good or something.
I don't think having achievements based around onehiting people is a good idea. Too easy to cheat that system.
Quote from "ansl" »
Anyhow, large-scale battegrounds were mentioned. I also think this would be really awesome, but with the graphics that D3 is presenting... I think it's going to screw up the FPS of a lot of computers. Think the maximum could be 10vs10 or 3v3v3 or 2v2v2v2v2.
These people need to get out of the stone age if they want to play games of this decade. I don't think sacrificing gameplay just because people are too stupid/stubborn/lazy to upgrade their computers is a good idea. I don't see Blizzard implementing battlegrounds into a game like Diablo anyway, but limiting gameplay is a bad idea.
Heh heh... for once, I actually agree with Zoobi =P
Quote from "Zoobi" »
I don't think having achievements based around onehiting people is a good idea. Too easy to cheat that system.
This is extremely true. Achievements like the ones mentioned would be easy to do. You have a friend, you tell said friend to strip naked, you one-shot him, he gears back up, you get your main, strip down, get one-shotted. Now those achievements are worthless because they can be easily gotten around.
These people need to get out of the stone age if they want to play games of this decade. I don't think sacrificing gameplay just because people are too stupid/stubborn/lazy to upgrade their computers is a good idea. I don't see Blizzard implementing battlegrounds into a game like Diablo anyway, but limiting gameplay is a bad idea.
Though I would love to see a battleground-esque like system, I don't think it'll happen.... and reducing graphics to try and allow for something like that would be ridiculous. We're in an age where computers that were epic 5 years ago will be able to run Diablo III, and they're not that expensive.
Seriously, there are people out there that need to stop running Windows 95 machine (With its "epic" 233 MMX processor and Voodoo graphics card) and whine whenever there is no support for games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
------------------------------------------- Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
-------------------------------------------
I don't think sacrificing gameplay just because people are too stupid/stubborn/lazy to upgrade their computers is a good idea. I don't see Blizzard implementing battlegrounds into a game like Diablo anyway, but limiting gameplay is a bad idea.
Hey first, the principal reason is money... and I think to making games with low requirment is motto's Blizzard company !! And it's work well, Do you know how much bought was made by people with low requirment ?
You're missing the point. First off, the current graphical implementations are by no means "low quality". Secondly, it would be foolish of Blizzard to reduce their current graphics just to create some moderate, "90's era" computer wielding, pvp fanbase. That's not Blizzard's M.O.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
------------------------------------------- Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
-------------------------------------------
You're missing the point. First off, the current graphical implementations are by no means "low quality". Secondly, it would be foolish of Blizzard to reduce their current graphics just to create some moderate, "90's era" computer wielding, pvp fanbase. That's not Blizzard's M.O.
They won't decrease the quality, you know almost games have it : options where you change the graphics, so the game will run on old computer with the lowest graphics and with higher on recent computer.
I'm not the PvP fan but I would like to support your ideas about PvP areas so people don't bother other players who don't wanna have anything with that. In that way all parties would be satisfied. Haven't read anything about that on forum, but sincerely I'm not even looking for information like that. Have fun and happy easter to all diablo fans (PvP and PvM).
Lol at the end of this post. But you brought up what I thought was the center of my ideas. It would create a satisfying PvP system that would leave PvM players alone and leave PvP players happy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Respectful is a strong word...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Anyway, I'm all for a good completed PvP system !! But something sure, PvE will be the primary focus.
Warcraft 1 and 2 are RTS, i dont know if you can call it pvp... I have never heard anyone use the term pvp for an rts before. Atleast not as in the aspect of pvp in the game.
Im not sure what you are trying to say, but what i meant from my last post was that Blizzard learned a lot from WoW, including how to make a better pvp system and game play. That will be implemented in D3. Improved, changed to suite the game, and implemented.
Yes yes, you never heard anyone use the term pvp, because it's too obvious, RTS is only players versus players or versus computer (AI playing like a player) So yes RTS is a big fat PvP.
Blizzard learn about every game released... not only their games.
I dont know man, you are arguing in the sake of making an argue, cant keep up with that. lol.
Lets just say that the pvp system in d3 will probably rock.
Yeah, yeah. Its PvP. But you are just mixing everything up. You never get the point of a discussion right and randomly argue things or spit random unrelated stuff with words I doubt you have any idea how to use.
Maybe you should practice making sense and making that thousand post of yours relevant more than 5% of the time.
ehhhh ok if you want...
I just answer...
I always explain my point with good logic arguments, read the thread, he just said RTS isn't PvP... all that because he compared Diablo 3 PvP with WoW PvP... We haven't reason to compare 2 kind of game...
So before denigrate, know what you're talking about...
5%... can you give me the report and the calcul of that ??
I did not say that RTS is not PVP. Read my posts carefully.
I did not compare D3 to WoW even though i could. I was simply talking about the fact that Blizzard have learned alot in the last few years. The things that they learned include an overall better pvp system, which is likely to be implemented on to D3.
But still, Blizzard has said that PvP will be a great focus in Diablo 3, so we can end the discussion there. I just want to know how they are going to set it up because the PvP in Diablo 2, even though it's fun as hell, has too many flaws. My first post in this thread showed how I would try to make it better.
That being said, I do think that the Battlegrounds // Arena // Guild Wars Guild Battles would be an interesting addition.
-------------------------------------------
Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
-------------------------------------------
I don't think having achievements based around onehiting people is a good idea. Too easy to cheat that system.
These people need to get out of the stone age if they want to play games of this decade. I don't think sacrificing gameplay just because people are too stupid/stubborn/lazy to upgrade their computers is a good idea. I don't see Blizzard implementing battlegrounds into a game like Diablo anyway, but limiting gameplay is a bad idea.
This is extremely true. Achievements like the ones mentioned would be easy to do. You have a friend, you tell said friend to strip naked, you one-shot him, he gears back up, you get your main, strip down, get one-shotted. Now those achievements are worthless because they can be easily gotten around.
Though I would love to see a battleground-esque like system, I don't think it'll happen.... and reducing graphics to try and allow for something like that would be ridiculous. We're in an age where computers that were epic 5 years ago will be able to run Diablo III, and they're not that expensive.
Seriously, there are people out there that need to stop running Windows 95 machine (With its "epic" 233 MMX processor and Voodoo graphics card) and whine whenever there is no support for games.
-------------------------------------------
Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
-------------------------------------------
They won't decrease the quality, you know almost games have it : options where you change the graphics, so the game will run on old computer with the lowest graphics and with higher on recent computer.
Lol at the end of this post. But you brought up what I thought was the center of my ideas. It would create a satisfying PvP system that would leave PvM players alone and leave PvP players happy.