I guess because diablo 3 will be different in that once you're in a public game, you're in it to achieve a specific goal or to start on a specific quest whereas in wow you log in and you're already in town, and dueling outside of town in wow doesn't increase the difficulty for the rest of the people in the game/server.. IE, you wouldn't queue into inferno act 4, or into a heroic wow dungeon, to just goof off and not work towards the objective. That's part of why you can't duel in instances in wow, because you'd waste everyone's time while doing so.
This thread appears to not want to die, more agreeable solutions have been posted.
If everyone gets on the same page and starts fighting for specific things on b.net forums that's where work gets done, whether we see them acknowledge it or not.
Hostily won't be reintroduced though. It was an early pvp system with many flaws, many of which have been improved upon in other games, and they've given us arena and slapped us across the face with "diablo is about killing monsters" game.
The old hostility system was actually terrible for griefing any way you cut it. Once you die your time in that game is practically over. You can't fight someone with 100 times your character's power. Also people generally won't put their backs up against the wall and willingly play in games where there is the potential risk of being ganked, although some of those same people wouldn't have minded being the predator when things were more convenient.
Anyhow I say we stop beating a dead horse and start proposing some more realistic ideas.
People tend to compare the D2 hostility function to the WoW PvP Server experience, but that's just false. The problem with hostility in D2 was, that the PKs could not be punished for their actions. Some examples:
1) I'm playing my PvM Armymancer with PvM oriented gear, then a PK joins the game. There is nothing I can't do against a mediocre equipped PK with that char. Now I got two options, try to kill him and probably fail or I log into another character, that is properly specced and equipped. But guess, what happens? The PK leaves as I leave the game or he leaves, when he sees, that he has to fight an equal or stronger enemy.
2) I play a new char, no friends are online and I made an open game 'act 2 no rush'. A PK joins the game and kills me and the players I'm playing with. Again I have two options: Leaving the game or stay in the game and die one hundred times till the PK has no interest in killing me further. If I try to log into my PvP char, he leaves most of the time.
The conclusion is, that PKing or better Griefing has no consequences to the PK himself, cause he can evade every form of punishment by the playerbase by leaving the game. He must not be afraid, that his character becomes famous for being a PK and being hunted down, cause he can just leave the game or play in a private game.
Now back to the comparison to open world pvp in WoW. The main difference is, that you cannot escape the consequences. If you grief people, you will be known for doing so and the whole server is gonna know that. When you gank a twink, he can call for help and all the PK can do then, is to teleport to his hometown and hide in it. But if he wants to play, he will have to leave the town and will be a target of revenge. In that environment you have to care about your reputation, since you're part of a server's community.
That's very true, it's hard to kill people without your power (equipment/corpse), and you could leave a game instantly, safely even if threatening people tried to back up their friends and go hostile. It was rpg pvp in its infancy, wow did it much better than d2. If you die so much as one time, even if it's 1vs4, you're pretty much skrewed so long as the others don't completely fail at corpse camping. There were other drawbacks such as spamming skills on waypoints or at the rogue encampment bridge as well. Not to say wow world pvp was perfect, it was just much better.
Hostility is a piece of junk for even semi-serious pvp, though it's a system that would work for some players, like me, it's not something I think should be implemented into the game given the surrounding situation.
I know that not many people would enter into hostile games. I'm going out on a limb here and will guess that most players will, for the most part play with their friends (and solo). A smaller but still significant portion of players will want to meet people and play on public. An even smaller but still existing portion like random world pvp and hostility.
That's why it's not the best solution. If half of all players loved random world pvp, then it'd be no problem. But while many people apparently love/like/can deal with controlled pvp, they don't appreciate being messed with, which is understandable.
The better solution is to just make the non-arena, arena, more like starcraft 2 than wow's. Allow people to, whenever they want, dick around with their own set of rules with specific players (IE friends, or a team for a community tournament etc), duel to the death w/ respawns 1v1, ffa for 8, etc.
More options, more features, and they would only add to the game. The only argument against it is resources, especially since we're some 43 days away from launch. However if people can come to a mutual agreement and get more and more people on the same page, the sooner we could as a community come to a decision as to what features we want to see in the game, and start making more constructive posts and garner more attention for the devs.
I trust blizzard to make a great game, but they still take popular opinion of the community to heart, to an extent. For those of you who have been playing sc2 you've seen them make a good many changes in the past half year or so proving this.
^It goes both ways. If it were the other way around and blizzard had us trolling each other in game you'd be one of those "whiny people" you mentioned. In fact the only reason you can try to look down on people who have a different opinion than you, is because the system you want is already in place. Even though the op's post appears trollish at first glance (running around killing people who want to kill monsters), he does mention having the option to make/join games with hostility, which many people have been trying to ignore. Personally I don't think it's the best solution to make most people happy, but I think it's still a fathomable solution.
For the sake of both parties, I think pvp should be isolated away from PvM, and if that is the case (as it is), it's no longer too farfetched of an idea to ask for more isolated pvp options/modes.
I get the argument about resources, as to why we can't have more content/emphasis on pvp. However a year down the line that should not be as big a deal, and I expect to see more detail put in for the part of blizzard's fanbase that want pvp any way they can get it.
I understand your points, and I agree with them because I'm not a closed-minded bigot.
I just hope they keep adding more options and modes etc to arena such as those you listed (and more such as FFA mentioned just above, and maybe given time years down the road CTF/KOTH etc) for the rest of us and for those people who don't think they would enjoy pvp but given some experimentation find it to be fun as well.
I really don't think it should be that hard/time-expensive to add more functionality to the arena in this manner, but what do I know.
Which is why some people are saying, what if hostility was an option you could check or uncheck prior to the creation(or joining) of a game so that it could benefit the other party as well, as opposed to just.... not having it at all. For instance, before you even run into the possibility of having to deal with annoying people who spam /duels or go /hostile, you choose whether or not you want to play in a game with those features enabled.
I think the real argument people should be trying to make is why not have more features that would only help the community such as this. I mean the only counter argument to this, that I can see, is that it could segment the community into two types of games. But is that really such a bad thing? I think diablo 2 made it pretty apparent that a lot of people like hostility and even more don't. Given the fact that if more players are fueling the economy (through RMAH, cosmetic DLC, expansions etc) because the game "does it" for them in that it's infinitely replayable, and thus blizzard would get more money and give the game more love, more people would play the game for longer, and neither party would suffer and both would benefit.
The arena should be there as middle-ground between both parties. Having more options is a good thing.
I know this process works because it's been proven in wow. There are PvE servers and there are PvP servers, and while the game is different and you can duel abroad (because you're not taking up a limited number of spaces and increasing people's difficulty), there are still arenas and bgs for all servers to serve as middle ground inbetween all types of players pvp or pve.
I'm not asking for a miracle to happen by launch, and while this idea just now came to me for some reason, it would be nice to see it in the years ahead when people (like me) can't continue playing simply in order to farm.
Also concerning the hidden ranking of the arena, that's fine I get it. The arena will get more action if people think there isn't something important (like a public record) on the line. But shouldn't people be able to see, themselves, where they stand and give them something to fight for and work on with the bold understanding that pvp is an afterthought and will not recieve much balancing attention at all.
^I know that works, because that's how the leagues in SC2 have worked for several seasons now. 96% of all players don't have a loss count. They just have league and win counts shown as well as achievements of quick match and sp scenario types, and the thing I'm suggesting is even less showy than that, in that you won't have anything shown, at most an optional title if you managed to do well.
I can't help but feel they should have had more people working on diablo 3, and that they keep cutting things out of the game that they would like to have, but can't have-at least for launch, and then get this mentality after some time afterwards that they don't want that in the game anymore.
It wouldn't be reintroduced because the cons outweigh the pros, in that there are more people who want to public monster slay than there are those who want world pvp.
So, are you agreeing its a bad idea then? I mean, I'd honestly love to hear some good reasons for open PvP to exist. Hostility in Diablo 2 greatly helped caused the rift between PvP and PvM players you're seeing in the posts. Many of us love the idea of Arena as it gives PvP a solid part of the game that will even be fun for casual players. Funny thing that many of the PvM players here actually are MORE interested in PvP due to the changes Blizzard has made....
I am agreeing that given the context hostility is a pretty awful idea while I myself would not have a problem with it (and would even appreciate it because of the way in which I plan to play the game with friends/family and only rarely with randoms). I don't expect everyone to play the game the same way or for the same reasons I do, and so that's why I think it'd be terrible for those people who plan on join-all public play. I'm not trying to fight for it to be reintroduced, I was simply saying it would have worked great for me.
I agree with you, on all but one point if I didn't manage to get it across before now.
I wouldn't have minded if pvp played a larger role in d3. I get that pvp is just a way to mash buttons and kill time in the world of sanctuary- an afterthought and I understand why, maybe even better than most. All I was saying is I really wouldn't have cared if something as brutal as hostility was reintroduced, and I think we will be seeing more pvp functionality in the years ahead, albeit in a controlled enviroment.
Perhaps you can answer my question then...what would hostility bring to the game? You say you wouldn't mind it being returned, but what actual benefits would there be to it being re-introduced, with the game designed as it currently is?
It wouldn't be reintroduced because the cons outweigh the pros, in that there are more people who want to public monster slay than there are those who want world pvp.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Why fight other people of near equal gear/skill to the death with any MMR at all, if it's all meaningless. And trust me, I've already bought the CE and am well aware of what I'm getting into. I'm not complaining, I just expect there will be more to come in the future.
If you're expecting more then a casual PvP experience, I have a feeling you're going to be waiting a long time. Blizzard's stance on highly competitive PvP in Diablo 3 has been 'Shut up PvP guy', lol. I expect the PvP will be fun to do when I just don't feel like grinding mobs, but I'm not ever expecting leagues, tournaments, etc...from Diablo 3 (nor do I personally care). It is just not what Diablo is about. PvP has always been an afterthought in Diablo and I'm glad it hasn't changed as it lets them focus their resources on a very awesome PvM experience, which I'm eager to play through a few hundred times.
I agree with you, on all but one point if I didn't manage to get it across before now.
I wouldn't have minded if pvp played a larger role in d3. I get that pvp is just a way to mash buttons and kill time in the world of sanctuary- an afterthought and I understand why, maybe even better than most. All I was saying is I really wouldn't have cared if something as brutal as hostility was reintroduced, and I think we will be seeing more pvp functionality in the years ahead, albeit in a controlled enviroment.
PvP will only be a joke if you're looking for some highly competitive PvP. If you're just looking to get together with a few people and kill other players, PvP will be a ton of fun. The biggest thing to realize is if you're buying Diablo 3 for PvP, you're doing it wrong. Diablo 3 is about PvM and story primarily and not PvP. Its ALWAYS been that way.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Why fight other people of near equal gear/skill to the death with any MMR at all, if it's all meaningless. And trust me, I've already bought the CE and am well aware of what I'm getting into. I'm not complaining, I just expect there will be more to come in the future.
Non consensual PVP is a lot different from taking risks, its about imposing and forcing people to engage in play that they want no part of.
Arena is competitive in WOW, but you seem to have something against 'itemized +controlled pvp'. I'm not certain what the reason is from your post but it could be that you're unable to get a reliable partner for your arena duels. I understand there isn't much of a 1v1 PVP niche in WOW because of balance reasons. Well you can rejoice because in D3, I suspect there will be random allies assigned to you in Arena. Blizzard hasn't detailed the arena system much yet in D3 but I would be most surprised if there wasn't a simple and convienent way for those unfamiliar with PVP to queue for a teamfight..
Hopefully your problem isn't the desire to attack those who would have nothing to do with PVP. That is something quite different from risk, balance issues or competitiveness indeed.
Wow always rubbed me the wrong way once arenas landed because it became a game of exploiting the gimmicks each season, and it made it *very* obvious how much gear has an impact in a "competitive" rpg environment as well as class composition in a game of team battles. It only makes sense though, power is power. I am a competitive, competent player when it is fun to be. I am not antisocial like you may be suggesting, I did everything from playing alone, leading small arena teams, leading multiple hundred man raids, heading "competitive" PvE guilds and pvp guilds, and had tens of thousands of views on warcraftmovies even in it's infancy. I was faction third GM in bg's on my server and cleared duelist to glad several times despite only playing for at most 3 months at a time once the expansions started slowly ruining the game, and a masters sc2 player since season 2(and MMR at the end of 1 when leagues locked).
All of that means next to nothing, the point is I know about controlled competitive pvp and I understand many, though not all, of the challenges there are when it comes to balancing itemized pvp. When you add an arena where players are supposedly matched against other (hidden) ranked players, you then *have* to worry about balance at least some, and that's where things start going down hill. It got old fast when every season the top 20 on each division was more or less the same FotM class comp with the same exact items. The difference in rank 100 and rank 1 was often a broken weapon/tier bonus from PvE or some overpowering trinket etc. There was one season where I was just dicking around with a friend who happened to be a paladin (on my deathknight) and fucking spammed icy touch to 2450+ 2v2 in a couple of hours.
Even if they could perfectly balance all the classes and class comps with the best cookie cutter builds for a time when they stop releasing new content, (and they won't even come close), there are still other problems such as RNG factoring in, and the challenge/cost of having to have a team rebalance the game for each new patch/expansion that changes much of anything significant as a (in world of warcraft) a trinket or something that made or broke a build.
My favorite thing about wow was the first 2.5 or so years where you were rarely ever safe at all. It was almost like territorial disputes. You could literally "own" a region for a time if you got all of your friends or guild together. I'll never forget crashing servers in the first weeks with multi-hundred person raids crossing the ocean and riding into Thunder Bluff for example, it was always hilarious to me when dozens or even a task force of the other faction strolled into where I was. Normally I ran around heroing it up solo in quest areas like WPL/EPL, or with a friend or two trying to beat the odds and see if anyone wanted to get mad or challenge us and make things interesting. The reverse also happened, made things fun and interesting.
They ultimately made guards more and more powerful, more classes got stealth, we got flying mounts then flying mounts outsped normal mounts by like 300%, and tried to force pvp in a controlled area (like arenas and battlegrounds) by giving players gear and title incentives. I'm fine with that, but it gets boring fast because then you start having to worry about class/gear balance, RNG, rank,/rating, responsibility to the team to show up at specific times, and more. Itemized+controlled pvp is a joke. Ultimately you were able to sit in town and go to any form of controlled pvp/pve you wanted. I was stoked to try age of empires online, itemized RTS pvp left a sour taste in my mouth. Most people can't even hack having their performance reflected in a 99% balanced game like starcraft 2 when there are only 3 race (and zero pre-determined item or class/class comp advantages) which have hardly changed over years.
Most players just can't hack losing, especially when they don't mentally prepare themselves for it ahead of time. To me that's what makes things interesting, when something is actually on the line in pvp like pride or territory. Now I just hope we get a quick and easy /duel feature so we're not even more pathetic than PVE wow server pvp, if that were even possible.
To recap, the pvp we are going to have is a joke and an after thought (there is nothing on the line, it will be imbalanced through itemization, class comp, and RNG will still exist where one player just recieves more or less luck than another). We're not even sure if we will be able to dick around and duel with our friends, which was still possible in even the most carebear wow servers, and just the same, there will be no visual ranking- and for good reason because of what I've pointed out above... And with that said I've already accepted that the vast majority of people do not like taking risks and I really do not expect much in terms of pvp from diablo.
The thing I liked most about WoW was world pvp and griefing, even being griefed. Yeah I got mad from time to time and (almost always) others got mad, but it kept things interesting. With that said this is diablo, not wow, and I've since learned that itemized RNG pvp is a heaping pile of crap, and that you should probably play a competitive game that has a real focus on competitive play and balance to get those competitive impulses and feelings worked out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The strong must rule if we are to survive.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This thread appears to not want to die, more agreeable solutions have been posted.
The old hostility system was actually terrible for griefing any way you cut it. Once you die your time in that game is practically over. You can't fight someone with 100 times your character's power. Also people generally won't put their backs up against the wall and willingly play in games where there is the potential risk of being ganked, although some of those same people wouldn't have minded being the predator when things were more convenient.
Anyhow I say we stop beating a dead horse and start proposing some more realistic ideas.
That's very true, it's hard to kill people without your power (equipment/corpse), and you could leave a game instantly, safely even if threatening people tried to back up their friends and go hostile. It was rpg pvp in its infancy, wow did it much better than d2. If you die so much as one time, even if it's 1vs4, you're pretty much skrewed so long as the others don't completely fail at corpse camping. There were other drawbacks such as spamming skills on waypoints or at the rogue encampment bridge as well. Not to say wow world pvp was perfect, it was just much better.
Hostility is a piece of junk for even semi-serious pvp, though it's a system that would work for some players, like me, it's not something I think should be implemented into the game given the surrounding situation.
That's why it's not the best solution. If half of all players loved random world pvp, then it'd be no problem. But while many people apparently love/like/can deal with controlled pvp, they don't appreciate being messed with, which is understandable.
The better solution is to just make the non-arena, arena, more like starcraft 2 than wow's. Allow people to, whenever they want, dick around with their own set of rules with specific players (IE friends, or a team for a community tournament etc), duel to the death w/ respawns 1v1, ffa for 8, etc.
More options, more features, and they would only add to the game. The only argument against it is resources, especially since we're some 43 days away from launch. However if people can come to a mutual agreement and get more and more people on the same page, the sooner we could as a community come to a decision as to what features we want to see in the game, and start making more constructive posts and garner more attention for the devs.
I trust blizzard to make a great game, but they still take popular opinion of the community to heart, to an extent. For those of you who have been playing sc2 you've seen them make a good many changes in the past half year or so proving this.
For the sake of both parties, I think pvp should be isolated away from PvM, and if that is the case (as it is), it's no longer too farfetched of an idea to ask for more isolated pvp options/modes.
I get the argument about resources, as to why we can't have more content/emphasis on pvp. However a year down the line that should not be as big a deal, and I expect to see more detail put in for the part of blizzard's fanbase that want pvp any way they can get it.
I just hope they keep adding more options and modes etc to arena such as those you listed (and more such as FFA mentioned just above, and maybe given time years down the road CTF/KOTH etc) for the rest of us and for those people who don't think they would enjoy pvp but given some experimentation find it to be fun as well.
I really don't think it should be that hard/time-expensive to add more functionality to the arena in this manner, but what do I know.
I think the real argument people should be trying to make is why not have more features that would only help the community such as this. I mean the only counter argument to this, that I can see, is that it could segment the community into two types of games. But is that really such a bad thing? I think diablo 2 made it pretty apparent that a lot of people like hostility and even more don't. Given the fact that if more players are fueling the economy (through RMAH, cosmetic DLC, expansions etc) because the game "does it" for them in that it's infinitely replayable, and thus blizzard would get more money and give the game more love, more people would play the game for longer, and neither party would suffer and both would benefit.
The arena should be there as middle-ground between both parties. Having more options is a good thing.
I know this process works because it's been proven in wow. There are PvE servers and there are PvP servers, and while the game is different and you can duel abroad (because you're not taking up a limited number of spaces and increasing people's difficulty), there are still arenas and bgs for all servers to serve as middle ground inbetween all types of players pvp or pve.
I'm not asking for a miracle to happen by launch, and while this idea just now came to me for some reason, it would be nice to see it in the years ahead when people (like me) can't continue playing simply in order to farm.
Also concerning the hidden ranking of the arena, that's fine I get it. The arena will get more action if people think there isn't something important (like a public record) on the line. But shouldn't people be able to see, themselves, where they stand and give them something to fight for and work on with the bold understanding that pvp is an afterthought and will not recieve much balancing attention at all.
^I know that works, because that's how the leagues in SC2 have worked for several seasons now. 96% of all players don't have a loss count. They just have league and win counts shown as well as achievements of quick match and sp scenario types, and the thing I'm suggesting is even less showy than that, in that you won't have anything shown, at most an optional title if you managed to do well.
I can't help but feel they should have had more people working on diablo 3, and that they keep cutting things out of the game that they would like to have, but can't have-at least for launch, and then get this mentality after some time afterwards that they don't want that in the game anymore.
I am agreeing that given the context hostility is a pretty awful idea while I myself would not have a problem with it (and would even appreciate it because of the way in which I plan to play the game with friends/family and only rarely with randoms). I don't expect everyone to play the game the same way or for the same reasons I do, and so that's why I think it'd be terrible for those people who plan on join-all public play. I'm not trying to fight for it to be reintroduced, I was simply saying it would have worked great for me.
It wouldn't be reintroduced because the cons outweigh the pros, in that there are more people who want to public monster slay than there are those who want world pvp.
I agree with you, on all but one point if I didn't manage to get it across before now.
I wouldn't have minded if pvp played a larger role in d3. I get that pvp is just a way to mash buttons and kill time in the world of sanctuary- an afterthought and I understand why, maybe even better than most. All I was saying is I really wouldn't have cared if something as brutal as hostility was reintroduced, and I think we will be seeing more pvp functionality in the years ahead, albeit in a controlled enviroment.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Why fight other people of near equal gear/skill to the death with any MMR at all, if it's all meaningless. And trust me, I've already bought the CE and am well aware of what I'm getting into. I'm not complaining, I just expect there will be more to come in the future.
Wow always rubbed me the wrong way once arenas landed because it became a game of exploiting the gimmicks each season, and it made it *very* obvious how much gear has an impact in a "competitive" rpg environment as well as class composition in a game of team battles. It only makes sense though, power is power. I am a competitive, competent player when it is fun to be. I am not antisocial like you may be suggesting, I did everything from playing alone, leading small arena teams, leading multiple hundred man raids, heading "competitive" PvE guilds and pvp guilds, and had tens of thousands of views on warcraftmovies even in it's infancy. I was faction third GM in bg's on my server and cleared duelist to glad several times despite only playing for at most 3 months at a time once the expansions started slowly ruining the game, and a masters sc2 player since season 2(and MMR at the end of 1 when leagues locked).
All of that means next to nothing, the point is I know about controlled competitive pvp and I understand many, though not all, of the challenges there are when it comes to balancing itemized pvp. When you add an arena where players are supposedly matched against other (hidden) ranked players, you then *have* to worry about balance at least some, and that's where things start going down hill. It got old fast when every season the top 20 on each division was more or less the same FotM class comp with the same exact items. The difference in rank 100 and rank 1 was often a broken weapon/tier bonus from PvE or some overpowering trinket etc. There was one season where I was just dicking around with a friend who happened to be a paladin (on my deathknight) and fucking spammed icy touch to 2450+ 2v2 in a couple of hours.
Even if they could perfectly balance all the classes and class comps with the best cookie cutter builds for a time when they stop releasing new content, (and they won't even come close), there are still other problems such as RNG factoring in, and the challenge/cost of having to have a team rebalance the game for each new patch/expansion that changes much of anything significant as a (in world of warcraft) a trinket or something that made or broke a build.
They ultimately made guards more and more powerful, more classes got stealth, we got flying mounts then flying mounts outsped normal mounts by like 300%, and tried to force pvp in a controlled area (like arenas and battlegrounds) by giving players gear and title incentives. I'm fine with that, but it gets boring fast because then you start having to worry about class/gear balance, RNG, rank,/rating, responsibility to the team to show up at specific times, and more. Itemized+controlled pvp is a joke. Ultimately you were able to sit in town and go to any form of controlled pvp/pve you wanted. I was stoked to try age of empires online, itemized RTS pvp left a sour taste in my mouth. Most people can't even hack having their performance reflected in a 99% balanced game like starcraft 2 when there are only 3 race (and zero pre-determined item or class/class comp advantages) which have hardly changed over years.
Most players just can't hack losing, especially when they don't mentally prepare themselves for it ahead of time. To me that's what makes things interesting, when something is actually on the line in pvp like pride or territory. Now I just hope we get a quick and easy /duel feature so we're not even more pathetic than PVE wow server pvp, if that were even possible.
To recap, the pvp we are going to have is a joke and an after thought (there is nothing on the line, it will be imbalanced through itemization, class comp, and RNG will still exist where one player just recieves more or less luck than another). We're not even sure if we will be able to dick around and duel with our friends, which was still possible in even the most carebear wow servers, and just the same, there will be no visual ranking- and for good reason because of what I've pointed out above... And with that said I've already accepted that the vast majority of people do not like taking risks and I really do not expect much in terms of pvp from diablo.