Duels and Hostility in *Private Only*

Poll: Should dueling and/or hostility be enabled in *Private* games?

Dueling and Hostility in Private Games

Should dueling and/or hostility be enabled in *Private* games? - Multiple Choice

  • Neither 29.6% of Users - 34 votes
  • Just dueling enabled 35.7% of Users - 41 votes
  • Just hostility enabled 2.6% of Users - 3 votes
  • Both dueling and hostility enabled 32.2% of Users - 37 votes
  • #81
    Quote from Sabvre

    When did they say they were going to add content? From all the blue posts i've seen ... our only content updates are xpacs. The updates wil be items being added.....


    Not sure how you expect me to find one blue post that I read randomly sometime in the past year or so. It just talked about how the RMAH would benefit the game and how they probably couldn't manage weekly quest additions, but perhaps monthly or bi~monthly.

    Quote from Slayerviper

    I'm curious on what "useful" content updates will be unless it's a significant upgrade or large scale balance change I don't see how monthly content upgrades can keep me into a game... just reminds me of people sucking on the WoW tit. In most cases once content is masted the default option is to PvP. I get that the RMAH will help with additional patches but to what extent?


    They probably won't be some kind of giant addition. That is what expansions are for. These will likely be more like additional random event areas that appear or special quests during holidays, etc. You might find 'the default option' to be PvP, however, a good number of us actually enjoy playing the game to fight monsters as well as PvP and inferno should give us a lot of fun in that regard.
    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    ecutruin +9000
  • #82
    I agree with slayer, a lot of people will always default to pvp when the content is cleared regardless of whether or not the reverse is true, that much is true. This gives them time to work in more pvp into either the arena or as polled in this topic (and received 2 to 1) adding it to private games. Most people who bother playing to 60 once will bother playing to 60 on additional characters as well, for them that is the additional content. It's after that (and the clearing of inferno) when pvp interested players will begin to quit if there is no dueling/private pvp match creation etc in the works.
    The strong must rule if we are to survive.
  • #83
    Quote from Kodachii

    I agree with slayer, a lot of people will always default to pvp when the content is cleared regardless of whether or not the reverse is true, that much is true. This gives them time to work in more pvp into either the arena or as polled in this topic (and received 2 to 1) adding it to private games. Most people who bother playing to 60 once will bother playing to 60 on additional characters as well, for them that is the additional content. It's after that (and the clearing of inferno) when pvp interested players will begin to quit if there is no dueling/private pvp match creation etc in the works.


    Why would people quit because there if there was no private PvP system? Its certainly seems that Blizzards goal is a more public environment, why would they try and focus on private? Where they should devote their PvP resources is improving the Arena experience. However, as we don't even know what will be available complaining that they aren't offering enough seems quite silly.
    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    ecutruin +9000
  • #84
    Blizzard's goal is to make money. They try and branch out to all types of players they've gathered thus far in any particular genre in order to gather their customers and then keep them fueling the game. B.net 2.0 was probably a priority in part because then they could advertise all blizzard games and events and gather the community as a whole. Just think annual pass. Think about what blizz did with arenas and battlegrounds in wow, and even as far back as d2. IF you want to talk about them trying to make it more of a "social, play together game" then understand what they did to wow. It used to be a much more social world, but they destroyed much of that by making the game more convenient for more people in the form of cross server, queue for anything from nearly anywhere, and lowered the quantity of players, and the quality (and bond) of said players that you need to do much of anything. Nearly everyone in wow is a wow-forum-hero and a legend in their own mind because there is no reason not to be.

    As far as the "arena experience" goes what we've been told about the arena looked fairly completed back in 2008 so I don't know how hard it could possibly be to implement an existing working system.

    I have a feeling that a lot more people revert to pvp when the "game" is "beaten" than you might believe. Even people hating on pvp now may ultimately change their opinion of it over time when they need a reason to continue endlessly grinding mobs for items. It's almost like clockwork. It's around that time I expect to see a little more loving come pvp's way.
    The strong must rule if we are to survive.
  • #85
    Quote from Kodachii

    As far as the "arena experience" goes what we've been told about the arena looked fairly completed back in 2008 so I don't know how hard it could possibly be to implement an existing working system.


    Except they specifically said that the previous Arena system was NOT what was going into the official PvP system after launch. If they were going to use what they had in 2008, they wouldn't be delaying PvP implementation and development till after release.
    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    ecutruin +9000
  • #86
    All the more reason for threads and moreover movements and popular opinion be expressed like this.
    The strong must rule if we are to survive.
  • #87
    Quote from Kodachii

    All the more reason for threads and moreover movements and popular opinion be expressed like this.


    Not a reason to complain that Diablo 3 won't have Diablo 2 PvP though. Blizzard has given their stance on PvP and said it will be in the form of Arena. Thus, asking for dueling in Arena would be a viable suggestion (and would get my support). However, that is not what happens generally. Instead we get demands that Blizzard is bad because they won't smash PvP into PvM where the majority of players (and Blizzard) doesn't want it. Right..... .. . .
    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    ecutruin +9000
  • #88
    I voted no because :
    - it is obvious that, once private, people like you will ask for public (pure classic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-in-the-door_technique )
    - I support Blizzard vision : Diablo is Coop PvM, Arena is PvP. No mix
    - this has been debated countless times


    Plus, by posting a pro-pvp question in a forum section read mostly by pro-pvp players, you give the false impression that a lot of players are pro-yoursystem.

    That's weak.
  • #89
    No,no,no. No hostile that can be used to PK another. Most of us do not have RL friends who play this awesome game, we have internet *"diablo" friends that we do not really know "well enough"

    For example in diablo 2, I "knew" this one guy that I played HC with. we did runs and muled high end items together. After about 3 month or so he just TPPK`d my ass without any proper reason. After that I was forced to play alone, and trust me playing Diablo alone is not as fun when doing with "friends".
  • #90
    "Hey wanna join my private hostility game so we can gank each other by surprise ? Sounds so exciting to be caught by surprise"

    This thread failed by putting the hostility troll back into the debate.

    Duel is fail because it's impossible to duel without letting the rest of the group handle the purpose of the game (which is PvM) alone.

    THERE WILL BE PVP STOP ASKING FOR SHIT-COPY OF IT INCLUDED IN PVM GAMES
  • #91
    Quote from Gryzorz

    I voted no because :
    - it is obvious that, once private, people like you will ask for public (pure classic http://en.wikipedia....-door_technique )
    - I support Blizzard vision : Diablo is Coop PvM, Arena is PvP. No mix
    - this has been debated countless times


    Plus, by posting a pro-pvp question in a forum section read mostly by pro-pvp players, you give the false impression that a lot of players are pro-yoursystem.

    That's weak.


    You've made some pretty big assumptions and accusations concerning me, even talking about my IRL personality. Don't act like you know me. Don't base your argument off an incorrect assumption because I'm anything but what you described. Get your facts straight sir.

    Duel is fail because it's impossible to duel without letting the rest of the group handle the purpose of the game (which is PvM) alone.

    THERE WILL BE PVP STOP ASKING FOR SHIT-COPY OF IT INCLUDED IN PVM GAMES


    Calm down. Everything's going to be alright. For how much I read the posts from contributors (such as Ecutruin) which try and label pvper's as hot headed and prone to personal attacks and insults etc you sure are not helping to prove his point with posts like these.

    There's no reason to be angry, we're trying to have a discussion here. Also If the pvp forum doesn't draw in pvm-specific players what are people like you doing here, and why are ~half the posts in this topic from people who specifically want to slay monsters and monsters basically alone. You may wish to rethink your points sir for they are flawed.

    Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop telling other people how they should think or what they should or should not do/post about.

    Thanks again,
    Kodachi.
    The strong must rule if we are to survive.
  • #92
    Quote from Gryzorz

    "Hey wanna join my private hostility game so we can gank each other by surprise ? Sounds so exciting to be caught by surprise"

    This thread failed by putting the hostility troll back into the debate.

    Duel is fail because it's impossible to duel without letting the rest of the group handle the purpose of the game (which is PvM) alone.

    THERE WILL BE PVP STOP ASKING FOR SHIT-COPY OF IT INCLUDED IN PVM GAMES

    K so I join your game with my brother. We decide that you know what... were gonna go do a different part of the act and not work with you, or you know what...were gonna gather all of the lore we can and really savor every moment of the game. Mess with the blacksmith for a few hours maybe, respawn the merchant gear for an hour or so... So tell me..hows that PvM going for you? Oh...I didn't just do the exact thing that you said dueling would do to you did I?

    Before someone posts "Oh that wouldn't happen!" Oh it would, actually I am pretty inclined to do just that, because of these conversations we have here. The ignorance in most of these posts and the white knights that ride into the PvP section that have no reason to be here other then to try and talk down to PvP'ers, is exactly why the hostile system suited me so well over the years, it was simple. You spew BS, I hit a button and boom...no more BS, perfect bliss.
  • #93
    As someone adamantly against hostility (But not dueling. I think dueling is a good idea), I'd be fine with it in Private games. The only thing I disliked about hostility was that people could come into your games and grief you out of them.

    If it's a Private game, random people can't barge in, so it's most likely a mutual decision amongst you and your friends. Or maybe your friend got you killed and you wanna kick their ass. Either one.
  • #94
    Quote from Adon

    K so I join your game with my brother. We decide that you know what... were gonna go do a different part of the act and not work with you, or you know what...were gonna gather all of the lore we can and really savor every moment of the game. Mess with the blacksmith for a few hours maybe, respawn the merchant gear for an hour or so... So tell me..hows that PvM going for you? Oh...I didn't just do the exact thing that you said dueling would do to you did I?

    Before someone posts "Oh that wouldn't happen!" Oh it would, actually I am pretty inclined to do just that, because of these conversations we have here. The ignorance in most of these posts and the white knights that ride into the PvP section that have no reason to be here other then to try and talk down to PvP'ers, is exactly why the hostile system suited me so well over the years, it was simple. You spew BS, I hit a button and boom...no more BS, perfect bliss.


    So, because we aren't still devoting our lives to a dead game (D2) it means we have no right to an opinion about a game we are interested in (D3)? I'm sorry, but I left D2 because it was dated, there are much better games out now with PvP options I enjoy more. Your blind obedience to D2's style of play seems to come from putting blinders on and ignoring the fact that the world moved on.

    Stop acting like you're so superior Adon, waving around claims of being so amazing in a dead game 12~ years after it was released. Why don't you instead actually listen to what the majority of players are talking about and realize WHY we don't want things the way you do...or are you too caught up in your D2 ways that you must resort to belittlement and ego fluffing?
    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    ecutruin +9000
  • #95
    What I think is a better idea yet is to give players the option of turning their public/private game into a HOSTILITY one, and when other players choose to join, they can pick what kind of game they want to participate in, labeled with hostility or non-hostility. Games can only be turned hostile by the original player and cannot be changed afterward. Public non-hostile games cannot be changed to hostile ones.

    I mean, the biggest problem that Blizzard had with hostility is griefing, right? If that's the case, this would be a perfect compromise. Players only go into hostile games to pvp, and non-hostile games to do everything else.

    I'm not even a big pvper, but I think this is a good idea. Tie hostility into a game type, not give individual players the choice of going hostile.

    Edit, wait - I don't see any idea not to tie mine into the OP's idea. I think that would be OK, and it would remove any of the developers' contentions.
    "The Unchosen" Pain of Admirance Sigil (For those without -Feat of Strength-):

    http://i.imgur.com/O7Oeo.png

    I received TWO beta keys. Eat it and like it.
  • #96
    Quote from Nuggetz

    What I think is a better idea yet is to give players the option of turning their public/private game into a HOSTILITY one, and when other players choose to join, they can pick what kind of game they want to participate in, labeled with hostility or non-hostility. Games can only be turned hostile by the original player and cannot be changed afterward. Public non-hostile games cannot be changed to hostile ones.

    I mean, the biggest problem that Blizzard had with hostility is griefing, right? If that's the case, this would be a perfect compromise. Players only go into hostile games to pvp, and non-hostile games to do everything else.

    I'm not even a big pvper, but I think this is a good idea. Tie hostility into a game type, not give individual players the choice of going hostile.

    Edit, wait - I don't see any idea not to tie mine into the OP's idea. I think that would be OK, and it would remove any of the developers' contentions.


    The main issue with doing this is that it would be adding a feature that the majority of players wouldn't use rather then just implementing dueling into Arena. Using Diablo 2 as an example, the majority of players made private games specifically to avoid hostility. If the trend stays, then these hostility games would also have very high queue times leaving even less incentive to implement the feature. Honestly, its just a bad feature for Diablo 3.
    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    ecutruin +9000
  • #97
    Quote from ecutruin

    Quote from Nuggetz

    What I think is a better idea yet is to give players the option of turning their public/private game into a HOSTILITY one, and when other players choose to join, they can pick what kind of game they want to participate in, labeled with hostility or non-hostility. Games can only be turned hostile by the original player and cannot be changed afterward. Public non-hostile games cannot be changed to hostile ones.

    I mean, the biggest problem that Blizzard had with hostility is griefing, right? If that's the case, this would be a perfect compromise. Players only go into hostile games to pvp, and non-hostile games to do everything else.

    I'm not even a big pvper, but I think this is a good idea. Tie hostility into a game type, not give individual players the choice of going hostile.

    Edit, wait - I don't see any idea not to tie mine into the OP's idea. I think that would be OK, and it would remove any of the developers' contentions.


    The main issue with doing this is that it would be adding a feature that the majority of players wouldn't use rather then just implementing dueling into Arena. Using Diablo 2 as an example, the majority of players made private games specifically to avoid hostility. If the trend stays, then these hostility games would also have very high queue times leaving even less incentive to implement the feature. Honestly, its just a bad feature for Diablo 3.


    I see your point, but then people could just make a hostile game, because the game you get put into is random anyways, it wouldn't matter much. I don't know too much about Arena, but if I did, my opinion might change. Arena is purely random as well, right? Do you have a choice who you duel?
    "The Unchosen" Pain of Admirance Sigil (For those without -Feat of Strength-):

    http://i.imgur.com/O7Oeo.png

    I received TWO beta keys. Eat it and like it.
  • #98
    No you don't have a choice, not yet anyways. It puts you up against a (premade) team of "near skill/power" (hidden match making value/rating) players. You can't goof off vs your friends, duel people 1v1, play in a last man standing kinda fashion, make your own rules, choose various fighting(map) environments etc, all we've been promised thus far is a 3 vs 3 barebones arena. That doesn't mean something else isn't in the works, but it does mean that it is all which is likely to pop up any time soon.

    D3 will launch with absolutely zero pvp. Once this nuts and bolts arena 3v3 (maybe 4v4) system is added, we're still talking about the least pvp in any blizzard game released over the past 12+ years. You could make 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 5v3, 6v2, 7v1, ffa and fight all over diablo 2. Wow launched with open world pvp, gained bgs and arenas. Starcraft is a game where you only really ever play vs other people.

    I seriously doubt they will stop at 3v3/4v4 though it is *likely* all we will see within the next year. They may give us such a lackluster system but introduce more functionality to it in an expansion etc.
    The strong must rule if we are to survive.
  • #99
    Quote from Kodachii

    No you don't have a choice, not yet anyways. It puts you up against a (premade) team of "near skill/power" (hidden match making value/rating) players. You can't goof off vs your friends, duel people 1v1, play in a last man standing kinda fashion, make your own rules, choose various fighting(map) environments etc, all we've been promised thus far is a 3 vs 3 barebones arena. That doesn't mean something else isn't in the works, but it does mean that it is all which is likely to pop up any time soon.


    We don't know what the updated Arena will offer. So saying you won't be able to is just wrong. It would be more supported by the community to ask for the ability to choose team vs team, duel, etc for Arena then try jam a system into the game that the majority of players don't want.
    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    ecutruin +9000
  • #100
    To be honest, both options are weak. If i wanted grief on pvp , i would play a MMORPG, and duels aren't really exciting to me.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes