Just to keep on topic. I didn't play for 6 years to PvP or PK I played to find new items, find the BEST items, and adventure with friends.
Same. Once I realized that being good at PvP seemed to require absolute top-notch equipment, I decided it wouldn't be worth it to even bother. I like improving my equipment, but making a big deal out of 1 unit of life on a grand charm (saw lots of posts like this on D2 forums), I knew it wasn't for me. I like the game, but I'm also sane.
I think PVP in the form of a simple 'Hostile' button was almost an afterthought, not the point of the game.
I said almost the exact same thing in another thread, lol...seems like the extent of the programming was to:
1. Let players target each other.
2. Make player drop an ear when killed by a player.
3. Miscellaneous 'rules' involving not being able to use certain TPs etc. just after hostile-ing, and not being able to unless you're in town.
Probably the ear part took the most work, lol. The rest seems like it could have been done with just on/off switches in the programming.
I pose this question to those who say D2 was mainly a coop game.
If D2 was meant to be a coop game.. then how come to whole game.. all the way through baal on hell diff... was soloable?
1. Making a game released in 2000 online-only would be financial suicide. There were still lots of people with 56K or no internet at all, and the game had to be playable for them, too.
2. The changes, especially those of 1.10 (iirc) definitely promoted cooperation, at least in Hell. Giving almost every monster immunity to something meant that the majority of players would have a very hard time 'going it alone' and would obviously encourage cooperative play. Of course it wasn't like soloing was IMPOSSIBLE, but it was definitely structured to encourage cooperation.
A Monk class could be like a hybrid of the Diablo 2's assassin (martial arts) and paladin (defensive/healing auras). I could dig that.
I could also see a class like Ranger: good with ranged weapons but also able to dual-wield (not able to dual-wield heavy stuff like the barbarian in D2, though).
Have you ever played HC? lvl 18, 24, 36 twinks could easily take out lvl 60, 70, 80 chars. Not exactly skilless losers..
Yes, it takes unmeasurable skill to twink a low-level character, giving them all the best stuff they can use with all of the 'dirty work' done by a high-level character.
PvM is nothing special or favored agaisnt PK or PvP.
Please:
1. You can play your whole Diablo 'career' without ever engaging another player. But you can't even reach the level at which PvP is ALLOWED without doing at least some PvM (and to be really competitive in PvP, you have to do a LOT of PvM). In other words, everyone does PvM, at least for a while, but not everyone does PvP.
2. You don't get any experience for killing other players. That by itself is a BIG 'special or favored' point on the PvM side. Diablo 2 rewards PvM, but not PvP (unless you consider an inventory full of ears a reward).
Nobody is imposing anything, if people don't want to be PKed they have a variety of choice at their disposal, what you are suggestion if removing all of ours.
And how many of those choices allow them to continue playing cooperatively and make friends in the game without having to deal with a griefer's intrusion?
NO, they are free to leave and play in passworded games wher they won't be griefed. They made a public game so they accept the social interation, whichever way that swings.
Absurd suggestions like "play in passworded games" destroy the ability to make friends and otherwise meet new people to team up with. You're basically saying that players should have to pay some kind of penalty for wanting to play cooperatively online (and forbid with people you didn't already know!). When you really get down to it, the absurdity of the argument shines through. Why should PvM players be penalized when their games aren't bothering anyone else? You can't compare disallowing griefing to that because griefing disrupts others, while cooperative PvM play does not.
That can very well depend on your definition of hero, ever heard of an anti-hero? Not all heroes are light and good and kind.
You're going off on a tangent. All of the players you can choose from in Diablo 2 have saving Sanctuary as their ultimate goal--if they didn't, you'd be able to 'win' the game in different ways with different classes. But no, regardless of who you choose, your goals are always the same--defeat the Prime Evils. They all have, storyline-wise, much better things to do than ambush other would-be heroes, killing them and stealing their money. They're supposed to be heroes, not muggers.
Which is a nice story for single play, but please check the message Blizzard gives you when you connect to Bnet, it says something like "online your gameplay experience can change".
Your reading comprehension needs work. The argument I responded to was that removing PK violates the story of the game. I pointed out that PvP in general doesn't even make any sense with respect to the storyline of the game.
This reminds me of the "homosexuality is bad because it's not natural" -> "but it does occur in nature" -> "don't argue it's okay just because it occurs in nature" line of argument. All I did was point out how silly it is to argue for griefing by pretending it's a part of the story of the game. That part was not an argument against griefing, just a refutation of his argument.
If all your goal is to beat hell baal and say you did it on Bnet, you're free to playing password games, basically online single player. As soon as you ask for social interaction be ready to accept both kinds, not only the positive, life isn't full of rainbows and flowers.
Yawn. Non-sequitur.
Perhaps it isn't for you? If you don't feel yourself in the argument perhaps it isn't addressed to you.
It's still irrelevant anyway. *shrugs*
Actually it's completely within his right to tell you what he thinks is real pvp. Perhaps it isn't the same for you, but that's an entirely different argument.
Sure he can tell me. But his decision on that subject is meaningless--PvP is defined as players fighting each other, period. There's no point in anyone adding their own invented distinctions to the term.
What he is saying is he doesn't want rules imposed to him, if there are rules it's only those he agreed to.
So, you're basically showing me exactly how he's a tremendous hypocrite?
Let's see, he doesn't want a rule imposed on him, only those he agreed to. And yet he's arguing in favor of a rule that WOULD be imposed on people who didn't want it, and would result in PvP combat they DIDN'T agree to. Interesting.
Maybe you ought to keep it to yourself the next time you want to 'defend' someone else--what you actually ended up doing was illustrating exactly how full of crap his stance is.
If he team duels it means he agreed to said rule, nobody imposed it on him.
So why is he entitled to having no unwanted rules imposed on him, but all the people who don't want to be griefed have to go to the back of the bus? Doesn't that seem a little arrogant to you?
It's a strawman since you're drawing relations to modern life, Diablo is in a medieval time at best, may I point you to human medieval history. Rules weren't quite the same as they are now.
Again, I will point out that using the story/setting of the game itself is nothing but poison to your own arguments; in the setting of Diablo 2, there would be practically no PvP whatsoever--the player characters are supposed to be heroes, remember? Their ultimate goal is to save Sanctuary, not rob other would-be heroes of their gold or lives.
Anti-pk people only have strawman arguments, sad but true.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Distruptive to who? It's not distruptive to me, regardless if I'm the hunter or the hunted.
Unless you are sitting in a game WAITING for someone to show up to grief you (and if you're dong that, seriously, what's wrong with you?), it is disruptive. Whatever one was doing before the griefer came in and hostiled you becomes...wait for it...disrupted by their unprovoked attack.
What you claim as fact is actually an opinion. Try again.
lol
Many is debatable also people dying of lag or other issues cause grief, doesn't mean we need to remove Hardcore.
1. Don't equivocate "grief". You know exactly what I mean by "griefing".
2. But Blizzard does try to ameliorate things like lag.
Just because it never occurred to you means nothing. It doesn't change anything. Some people don't like trading and it doesn't occur to them to go trade in trade games, should we remove trade?
That part wasn't an argument for/against anything, goofball. I was just stating something about myself there.
I wonder if the larger bosses jus walk over the walls? Maybe why the WD didnt use it at the end of the video
Hm, good question.
I wouldn't know because I never played a Necromancer focusing on bone spells, but I'm guessing it's going to be similar to how bosses in Diablo 2 react to being inside bone prisons/walls (do they just attack them?)
PKing is part of Diablo - Opinion, some people played the whole game without it.
Frankly, it never even occurred to me to go 'hunt' other players while they were doing other things in games. Seems like you need to have a certain mindset to even come up with an idea like that, much less execute it.
Changing the graphics engine is an Upgrade to the game... changing the PvP system is a complete revamp or a huge section of the game... stupid strawman argument.
1. It's not a huge section; griefers are a small minority, as evidenced by their complaints that if there was an opt in/out system, no one would opt in to it.
2. Fixing a broken mechanic is an upgrade as far as I'm concerned. It can also be considered as part of the upgrade to PvP in general, as I have no doubt there will be a more structured/polished PvP system in general.
Strawman Argument #2:
This is a game in which we are immersed in a chaotic (spelled correctly this time just for you) world swarmming with hell beasts. For there to be structured PvP, like as there is in WoW, not only doesn't fit in the story, but ruins this game to some extent.
lol...okay, let's talk "doesn't fit in the story".
In the story of Diablo 2, you're a hero trying to save Sanctuary, not someone looking to kill others trying to succeed at the same goal. The game emphasizes COOPERATING to achieve this goal, and that's why there are parties and things such as monsters immune to one or more elements, especially in Hell (which encourages a diverse team). Story-wise, there should be no PvP AT ALL! Who the hell would be squabbling with each other when the Prime Evils are fucking everything up? Talk about bigger fish to fry!
So nice try, but attempting to complain that removing griefing violates the "fit in the story" is absolutely ridiculous, since just about ALL player/player combat makes absolutely no sense in terms of the setting of the game.
WoW pvp is the most "kiddie" PvP i have ever played.
Good for you, but I don't care. I'm not a WoW player, so such distinctions are meaningless to me.
Structured PvP is kiddie pvp.. i dont want rules on my PvP (griefing /hacking aside that is). Free for all murder fests are real PvP.
No True Scotsman fallacy. It's not your place, nor do you have any authority, to be telling others what's "real" or 'fake' PvP. PvP = player vs. player. All of the things you described are PvP, period.
1 on 1's are also good, and team pvp.. but again, its kiddie pvp if it is structured.
lol, you don't see your own hypocrisy...any rules add structure. Pairing off into teams adds structure.
In other words, what you're really saying is that you want structure, but only the kinds of structure you like, and screw everyone else. And you wonder why this argument doesn't work?
You relating my argument of structured pvp as "kiddie PvP" in a supposedly chaotic virtual world, to being the same thing as me saying Real life is kiddie because there is structured laws is a stupid strawman argument.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Explain how it's a straw man to draw a parallel between disallowing disruptive play in a game and disallowing disruptive acts in real life.
I can go all day pointing out strawman arguments that the anti-PK camp constantly makes.. but those are 2 of yours.
Of course, Timaah just replies saying it's a straw man, but he doesn't explain how. I think he just started throwing the term around after I introduced it. I don't think it means what you think it does, Timaah--it's not a magic phrase you throw at an argument you don't like that automatically defeats it.
0
Same. Once I realized that being good at PvP seemed to require absolute top-notch equipment, I decided it wouldn't be worth it to even bother. I like improving my equipment, but making a big deal out of 1 unit of life on a grand charm (saw lots of posts like this on D2 forums), I knew it wasn't for me. I like the game, but I'm also sane.
0
I said almost the exact same thing in another thread, lol...seems like the extent of the programming was to:
1. Let players target each other.
2. Make player drop an ear when killed by a player.
3. Miscellaneous 'rules' involving not being able to use certain TPs etc. just after hostile-ing, and not being able to unless you're in town.
Probably the ear part took the most work, lol. The rest seems like it could have been done with just on/off switches in the programming.
1
1. Making a game released in 2000 online-only would be financial suicide. There were still lots of people with 56K or no internet at all, and the game had to be playable for them, too.
2. The changes, especially those of 1.10 (iirc) definitely promoted cooperation, at least in Hell. Giving almost every monster immunity to something meant that the majority of players would have a very hard time 'going it alone' and would obviously encourage cooperative play. Of course it wasn't like soloing was IMPOSSIBLE, but it was definitely structured to encourage cooperation.
0
What the hell does that even mean?
0
Happily, when I restarted playing Diablo 2 and 'rolled' a Necromancer, I tried "Candlelight" and it wasn't taken.
0
I could also see a class like Ranger: good with ranged weapons but also able to dual-wield (not able to dual-wield heavy stuff like the barbarian in D2, though).
0
Yes, it takes unmeasurable skill to twink a low-level character, giving them all the best stuff they can use with all of the 'dirty work' done by a high-level character.
0
Please:
1. You can play your whole Diablo 'career' without ever engaging another player. But you can't even reach the level at which PvP is ALLOWED without doing at least some PvM (and to be really competitive in PvP, you have to do a LOT of PvM). In other words, everyone does PvM, at least for a while, but not everyone does PvP.
2. You don't get any experience for killing other players. That by itself is a BIG 'special or favored' point on the PvM side. Diablo 2 rewards PvM, but not PvP (unless you consider an inventory full of ears a reward).
And how many of those choices allow them to continue playing cooperatively and make friends in the game without having to deal with a griefer's intrusion?
Absurd suggestions like "play in passworded games" destroy the ability to make friends and otherwise meet new people to team up with. You're basically saying that players should have to pay some kind of penalty for wanting to play cooperatively online (and forbid with people you didn't already know!). When you really get down to it, the absurdity of the argument shines through. Why should PvM players be penalized when their games aren't bothering anyone else? You can't compare disallowing griefing to that because griefing disrupts others, while cooperative PvM play does not.
You're going off on a tangent. All of the players you can choose from in Diablo 2 have saving Sanctuary as their ultimate goal--if they didn't, you'd be able to 'win' the game in different ways with different classes. But no, regardless of who you choose, your goals are always the same--defeat the Prime Evils. They all have, storyline-wise, much better things to do than ambush other would-be heroes, killing them and stealing their money. They're supposed to be heroes, not muggers.
0
"This job would be great if it wasn't for the fucking customers."
You just reminded me of that.
1
Your reading comprehension needs work. The argument I responded to was that removing PK violates the story of the game. I pointed out that PvP in general doesn't even make any sense with respect to the storyline of the game.
This reminds me of the "homosexuality is bad because it's not natural" -> "but it does occur in nature" -> "don't argue it's okay just because it occurs in nature" line of argument. All I did was point out how silly it is to argue for griefing by pretending it's a part of the story of the game. That part was not an argument against griefing, just a refutation of his argument.
Yawn. Non-sequitur.
It's still irrelevant anyway. *shrugs*
Sure he can tell me. But his decision on that subject is meaningless--PvP is defined as players fighting each other, period. There's no point in anyone adding their own invented distinctions to the term.
So, you're basically showing me exactly how he's a tremendous hypocrite?
Let's see, he doesn't want a rule imposed on him, only those he agreed to. And yet he's arguing in favor of a rule that WOULD be imposed on people who didn't want it, and would result in PvP combat they DIDN'T agree to. Interesting.
Maybe you ought to keep it to yourself the next time you want to 'defend' someone else--what you actually ended up doing was illustrating exactly how full of crap his stance is.
So why is he entitled to having no unwanted rules imposed on him, but all the people who don't want to be griefed have to go to the back of the bus? Doesn't that seem a little arrogant to you?
Again, I will point out that using the story/setting of the game itself is nothing but poison to your own arguments; in the setting of Diablo 2, there would be practically no PvP whatsoever--the player characters are supposed to be heroes, remember? Their ultimate goal is to save Sanctuary, not rob other would-be heroes of their gold or lives.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Unless you are sitting in a game WAITING for someone to show up to grief you (and if you're dong that, seriously, what's wrong with you?), it is disruptive. Whatever one was doing before the griefer came in and hostiled you becomes...wait for it...disrupted by their unprovoked attack.
lol
1. Don't equivocate "grief". You know exactly what I mean by "griefing".
2. But Blizzard does try to ameliorate things like lag.
That part wasn't an argument for/against anything, goofball.
0
Hm, good question.
I wouldn't know because I never played a Necromancer focusing on bone spells, but I'm guessing it's going to be similar to how bosses in Diablo 2 react to being inside bone prisons/walls (do they just attack them?)
0
Frankly, it never even occurred to me to go 'hunt' other players while they were doing other things in games. Seems like you need to have a certain mindset to even come up with an idea like that, much less execute it.
0
1. It's not a huge section; griefers are a small minority, as evidenced by their complaints that if there was an opt in/out system, no one would opt in to it.
2. Fixing a broken mechanic is an upgrade as far as I'm concerned. It can also be considered as part of the upgrade to PvP in general, as I have no doubt there will be a more structured/polished PvP system in general.
lol...okay, let's talk "doesn't fit in the story".
In the story of Diablo 2, you're a hero trying to save Sanctuary, not someone looking to kill others trying to succeed at the same goal. The game emphasizes COOPERATING to achieve this goal, and that's why there are parties and things such as monsters immune to one or more elements, especially in Hell (which encourages a diverse team). Story-wise, there should be no PvP AT ALL! Who the hell would be squabbling with each other when the Prime Evils are fucking everything up? Talk about bigger fish to fry!
So nice try, but attempting to complain that removing griefing violates the "fit in the story" is absolutely ridiculous, since just about ALL player/player combat makes absolutely no sense in terms of the setting of the game.
Good for you, but I don't care. I'm not a WoW player, so such distinctions are meaningless to me.
No True Scotsman fallacy. It's not your place, nor do you have any authority, to be telling others what's "real" or 'fake' PvP. PvP = player vs. player. All of the things you described are PvP, period.
lol, you don't see your own hypocrisy...any rules add structure. Pairing off into teams adds structure.
In other words, what you're really saying is that you want structure, but only the kinds of structure you like, and screw everyone else. And you wonder why this argument doesn't work?
Saying it doesn't make it so. Explain how it's a straw man to draw a parallel between disallowing disruptive play in a game and disallowing disruptive acts in real life.
So you claim. Reality tells a different story.
=====NEXT POST=====
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?p=295756#post295756 <-- This is an interesting analogy. It illustrates how allowing someone to force a mechanic on you is annoying and doesn't add anything to the game.
Of course, Timaah just replies saying it's a straw man, but he doesn't explain how. I think he just started throwing the term around after I introduced it. I don't think it means what you think it does, Timaah--it's not a magic phrase you throw at an argument you don't like that automatically defeats it.
0
Can you at least identify one or two of them?
0