I'm still optimistic that pvp is going to be fun. All we can really take away from this quote is that hostility won't be a part of the game. That doesn't mean that you won't be able to create special pvp games, where everyone who joins is already automatically hostile to everyone else. That way we would still have open world pvp, where you could fight another player anywhere in the game, as opposed to in a special arena only.
Of course 99% of legit pvp in D2 happened in the blood moor. Heck, even a lot of the pks I did were in the blood moor. I don't really think theres a whole lot of cooperative play in D2 anymore. Most of the open games I remember were just lowbies hoping some high level dude would join their game and rush them out of the goodness of their heart and give them free gear. "Are you here to help me?" "Oh yeah dude, check it out I hid an soj out in the blood moor go find it..." You see where this is going I hope. What I'm trying to say is there's not much of a reason to have open world pvp when 99% of pvp happens in the blood moor just for the sake of having a place to happen. For you pks, if there is an arena where pvp takes place, I'm sure you'll be able to lure newbies in there all the same by telling them theres a rare piece of gear hiding in the middle of it. Trust me, it works every time, especially when theres more than one of them because then they think its a race. "How are we supposed to get the soj when you keep killing us???"
I know pks are good for a laugh, believe me, I know, but is it the ONLY fun way to pvp in D2? I don't mean to brag, but before synergies were added (was it 1.10?) I read the patch notes and I knew what was coming. I made an assassin, named trapassassin, creative I know, with all the points in traps (I got to lvl 93 before the patch, I think). At the time, traps really sucked and I can't tell you how many people told me how stupid I was for being trapassassin. I was so stupid I also pre-made an enigma before the runeword was added to the game for trapassassin to use. Even after the patch hit, I would join a duel game and most players lined up to fight me because they thought anyone named 'trapassassin' would be an easy win. Needless to say I killed a lot of people with my traps. I know pking is fun, but my point is that it can be just as fun to surprise and destroy someone who duels you voluntarily, even if it is more of a challenge.
We've already read that the D3 development team is comitted to treating pvp better this time around. Whatever that means, I'm very confident that pvp will still be violent, bloody, brutal, and in no way what I would call 'carebear.' There are lots of ways the development team can make pvp in D3 even more fun than it was in D2, and none of them are required to involve killing weak lowbies who couldn't hurt you if they tried.
If the ONLY sort of pvp you enjoy in D2 is attacking someone significantly weaker than yourself who isn't expecting it, then maybe you won't enjoy pvp in D3. You might want to ask yourself though, what is it about a fair fight that you don't like so much?
- Registered User
Member for 12 years, 11 months, and 21 days
Last active Sat, Dec, 19 2009 14:19:08
- 0 Followers
- 274 Total Posts
- 3 Thanks
Oct 31, 2009rockstar posted a message on Griefing, Health Orb Mechanics and More with Jay WilsonPosted in: News & Announcements
Oct 29, 2009To some people 'free and open play' might mean free and open pvp. There are more perspectives here than just your own. You would do well to consider this because I guarantee blizzard is going to look at this from more than one angle.Posted in: News & Announcements
Your problem here is not the pvp system, its the griefers. Even without the benefit of pvp, I still found effective ways of griefing in D2. Imagine you create an open game looking for partners to help you kill andariel. By the time your party gets to the bottom of the catacombs you realize that I've already been there with my 99 sorc. I didn't join your party and I've killed andariel. You are now unable to complete the quest in this game.
Seriously, I could probably grief you by simply joining your game and refusing to be a part of your group. That way you couldn't have a full party. If the goal is really to have 'free and open play' then there can be no rule preventing my freedom in your open game. That means I can join and choose not to participate in your quest, or that I can go and kill quest bosses on my own.
Some people might consider it griefing if I join your game and spam a bunch of nonsense or dirty language. Worse yet, I could join your brand new game titled "kill meph" and make your whole party leave simply by telling them that mephisto was already dead.
The only way to prevent ALL forms of griefing is to create a passworded game. If you don't like it then come up with a better way. If you insist on playing in an open game then you're just going to have to live with the fact that some players aren't going to do exactly what you want them to. That's free and open play!
Suggesting a system that restricts pvp isn't much of a solution. Pvp becomes less fun and we still have griefers. You've managed to make the game less fun without even solving your fundamental problem. Maybe they won't be able to pk you, but I think I've demonstrated a fair number of ways to ruin an open game without pvp.
So I invite you to enter some constructive conversation. There's really no need to tear down nightguy1, I really think he had a lot of interesting and cool ideas. If you think they'd be impossible to implement then why don't you suggest a way that they could be modified in order to make them achievable? If you really don't like that I suggested the use of passworded games, then why don't you suggest a better way to prevent griefing while improving pvp. It seems that you came here to talk about griefing (or pks), and not legitimate pvp, which is actually the topic of the thread.
Oct 10, 2009I really enjoyed the guitar parts from the D2 music. In fact I felt that the SOUNDs from D2 were what kept me playing for so many years. The graphics have long been outdated, and the story was old after the first time you beat the game on normal difficulty with the first character you ever made like 10 years ago. But the sound it makes when you create a new barb, walk out into the blood moor, and club a zombie is still so satisfying! And at least as important was the music. I loved the D2 act 1 music.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
I'd love to hear more about the music and sound design for D3, as I believe these components are MOST critical to creating a great game!
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Nov 8, 2009Diii.net: Are we going to see returning set or unique items from Diablo 1 or Diablo 2?Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Jay Wilson: *pause* Uh? probably. The game?s itemization is done fairly late in development. The itemization in general is done fairly late in development. So at that point we?ll be building unique items and looking all over the world for ideas and I?m sure we?ll look at the previous games.
Official Blizzard Quote:
Diablo: Artists are pushing to create lots of Unique weapons. Nothing we'll show off just yet
Does this mean that they're already 'fairly late in development'? Maybe we will see this game sooner then we've all anticipated....
Nov 7, 2009Now, I've got an odd habit of using game manuals as reading material on the john, and as I was rifling through the Diablo I manual several weeks back, I found an interview that I previously hadn't read.Posted in: News & Announcements
Of course, I read through it, and was surprised at the amount of insight into the development and history of Diablo that was contained within. One section in particular however, completely dwarfed all others in the sheer amount of questions it raised about what our beloved games could have become.
Official Blizzard Quote:" game much like the old Unix-based games (or chess, for that matter): Players would move a character one square, and then the opponent or monster would move one square. Eight months into the development, the folks at Blizzard suggested making Diablo a real-time game, like Warcraft II. " class="blizzsource">
The original idea was to develop a "turn-based" game much like the old Unix-based games (or chess, for that matter): Players would move a character one square, and then the opponent or monster would move one square. Eight months into the development, the folks at Blizzard suggested making Diablo a real-time game, like Warcraft II.
In case nobody knows what they mean by old Unix games, they basically mean dungeon-romps (much like the Diablo series), in which you would move around a character, often represented by a letter, to kill monsters. All of which was often turn based.
Official Blizzard Quote:" Schaefer says. "And they said OK to that, which I think was pretty cool of them. But then the real fight started up here."" class="blizzsource">
"We resisted and pushed for a turn-based game," Schaefer says. "And they said OK to that, which I think was pretty cool of them. But then the real fight started up here."
For all of you out there who blame Blizzard for all of Diablo III's shortcomings, and wish that Blizzard North was running the show, know this: If Blizzard North had their way with Diablo I, we would have been playing a turn based game, possibly with Diablo II as well.
Official Blizzard Quote:'s kitchen," Brevik recalls. "We stomped around, dug our heels in and said, 'We're not changing it!' From an art standpoint, it would really have been no different, but from a programming standpoint, it was going to be a big pain for me. But then we thought about it some more and decided to try their idea. I hacked up something in a couple of days to see what it would be like, and we all just loved it."
Brevik had to develop a new engine to run the game in real time, but it added an element of almost DOOM-like action that made the game unique among RPGs. Schaefer says that although they were sold on the game's real-time aspect, they still wanted to make the play different than a game like Warcraft." class="blizzsource">
"We had this big argument in Eric's kitchen," Brevik recalls. "We stomped around, dug our heels in and said, 'We're not changing it!' From an art standpoint, it would really have been no different, but from a programming standpoint, it was going to be a big pain for me. But then we thought about it some more and decided to try their idea. I hacked up something in a couple of days to see what it would be like, and we all just loved it."
Brevik had to develop a new engine to run the game in real time, but it added an element of almost DOOM-like action that made the game unique among RPGs. Schaefer says that although they were sold on the game's real-time aspect, they still wanted to make the play different than a game like Warcraft.
It's really quite interesting to consider what would have been, if that real-time-test had never occured...
I don't want to think of how PvP would have turned out. No doubt it would still function similarly, but it would have lost that fast-paced, on your toes feeling granted by the real-time aspect. It would also eliminate all but the most capable PKers; can you imagine trying to jump lower level characters, when they have time to wait for you to move 4 more squares before you could land a hit on them?
Along the lines of PvP, is the combat system as a whole. What use would faster attack be with a system such as this? Would it simply add another chance to attack on your turn? What about potions? Would they be free-actions, or would drinking a potion end your turn before being able to move or fight?
It also really brings into question how the development of further games would have been effected with a turn-based system. Perhaps it would have influenced Diablo II to become more of an RTS-styled game, than the fast paced mayhem we all know and love.
Though, the most important question I had on my mind...
Would we even be playing it?
Sources: Straight from the Diablo I manual, pgs. 243-244.
Nov 7, 2009Yea, I didn't pick the title. I'm not a fan of PvP myself. I can do 350 baal runs in a sitting if I put my mind to it, but I can't pvp for more than a few minutes without needing a strong drink. In any case after reading all your replies I grabbed a few quotes to reply to. emilemil1:Posted in: News & Announcements
Heh, well some like it, it's not for me. Obviously Blizzard didn't like it too much when it was forced anyway, remember "this game will end in 90 seconds?" That sure didn't make a return in LoD. Lucion:Avoiding PKers is pretty much equal to a timer that appears every once in a while that will kill you if you don't leave the game when it hits zero. Would that be a fun event?
Pretty much. I mean I didn't want to make them needed rewards, but really if you're a normal character you're fighting monsters, if you're a PvP character you're fighting monsters AND player at the same time. This has nothing to do with organized dueling. PK + PvM is harder than just PvM. Rockstar:There is a built in assumption in several places in this thread that PvP characters are superior to non PvP characters and so should enjoy better rewards.
Seeing the services Blizzard offers WoW players this would likely be a paid service, but I don't see why it would be a bad idea. Some items are Bind on Equip IIRC. Rockstar:If a player chooses non-pvp upon character creation, I'd like to see the ability to change to pvp later on. It is entirely conceivable that someone new to the game might feel a little overwhelmed by the pvp option at first. Of course, a few months later they could be high level with powerful gear and looking for an additional challenge. I know its not that difficult to make a new character, I've made dozens, but not all of us have the time or dedication to create and level multiple characters.
I totally agree it should have a time limit. Either that or maybe when the entire other team (or single player) has died and not yet engaged in hostile activities the choice could be deactivated. Something like that in any case. PvM(guest):One concern about this system is the invitation to join pvp combat given to players who are in a party with someone who has been hostiled by another player. I'm wondering if this invitation should have a time limit.
Blizzard ran these statistics at Blizzcon. I am unsure on the specific numbers ask Bashiok. Most players do not like random PvP. There are fewer WoW realms with fewer people for PvP, there are few people who wanted it at Blizzcon, I am guessing they are using this data.I love how people say PvM are the majority or how the majority hate PvP or PK. WHo ran these statistics? How new are they to Diablo? How long have they played? Im just curious where you guys are getting your info. The developers who seem to know absolutely nothing about Diablo?
Nov 5, 2009Just when we thought that news on Diablo III had ground to a halt, Blizzard comes at us with another snippet of information.Posted in: News & Announcements
Official Blizzard Quote:
Diablo: Artists are pushing to create lots of Unique weapons. Nothing we'll show off just yet
So it's confirmed! Unique items will, in the tradition of both Diablo games, have their own unique animations to go along with them.
In the case of Diablo I and II, nearly every unique weapon had its own alternative icon, such as the Jade Tan Do, or the Soul Harvest. Some unique items didn't have their own icons of course, but for the most part, they were grand, powerful looking weapons far beyond the plain items they were based on.
However, this unique-appearance did not extend beyond the inventory, it still looked like the rest of the items when actually equipped on your character. The system now, however, seems to use the same models in-inventory, and on-character. Basically, this means that how it appears in your inventory, is how it will appear on your character.
No longer will your Bonesnap look like the rest of the run of the mill mauls, it will look unique on your character!
(This article was written by Zhar and posted in his stead.)
Ughh, I disagree, seperate them. Like you mentioned D2 still hits 60k people a day. Even if thats all the traffic D3 attracts, and they're seperated evenly into PK and NOPK, that leaves 30k people each. Considering you can only have what, 4-8 players in a game, I'm not sure if anytings been finalized, whether you have a 30k player base or 60k is pretty much the same. Its not like your talking about splitting up a game with 40 players on it.Posted in: News & Announcements
Why seperate them you ask. Everyones just going to make an mf farmer for gear running, and and PK'er for jumping randoms. Good look ever getting an MF farmer agreeing to fight you when they know your obviously a geared/specced out PK'er.
If you want to put it in D2 terms are you going to agree to hostility when your on your 500mf meteorb sorc when you know the sorc that just hostiled you probably has twice your damage/res/health/mana?
I can completely understand some people just don't want to PK. However, for those that do, if you want to do it, you should be forced to live with the risk/fun factor of it at all times. Otherwise its going to amount to pub games full of standard mf characters that will never agree to PK'ing.
I don't even think they should be able to trade with eachother. I'm just going with the assumption drops will be better in more populated games, like they were in D2. If this is the case, why should I be able to completely safely farm with my 500mf sorc in pub games with 0 risk of getting PK'd, when I'm farming gear for PK characters? Considering at some point I'd enjoy going in and stomping some pub mf runs, I think its only fair other people have the chance to do it back to me.
As far as the achievements go, more features are generally better then less, but I just can't find myself caring about worthless features being passed off as rewards. Getting a comment for having a cool generic title is far less cool then just getting a comment for coming up with a cool character name. Ears...yeah sure they're cool, its fun to see piles of them on the ground, but I'd never waste time clicking to pick one up, or inventory space on them. Achievements that amount to just a little icon on some score screen somewhere...as respectfully as I can put it, these "rewards" are all useless.
If these characters must be mixxed, why not actually make pvp "rewards" worth it without disrupting the balance of power at all between a pvp and non-pvp fight. Something reasonable would be give all PVP characters +25% more drops. If your willing to expose yourself at all times to PK'ers, and are good enough to fight them off, then it is far worth your time to go pvp. If your just learning the game or just hate pvp, well then you just get a little less reward, because you have less risk.
As far as griefing in D2 goes, it really wasn't that bad. There were obviously some hacks and glitches people used to grief people, and the game would be better without them. I don't think anyone would be sad to see tppk hacks eliminated, other then the cheaters that use them.
Corpse camping as previously mentioned. You can be super slick and outmaneuver the camper, have a friend chase him off or kill him, save/exit and rejoin if you want to take the guy out that bad, or just save/exit and go to a different game if you think the guys a jerk and you don't want to play with him.
If you consider someone taking your gold griefing...is it really that bad? Its pretty worthless anyhow. You need 50k for a merc on occasion, and some repair money here and there, and all the rest pretty much just gets tossed away gambling. So you die, drop 200k, someone grabs it...big deal. You join some random baal/chaos game, fill up your inventory once, that takes about 30 seconds, sell it, and you made all your money back.
A lot of other forms of griefing could just be worked out by design. Obviously pots are gone so you don't have to deal with people juvving. Hopefully the res/absorb system sees some improvements so you don't always get those guys that run to stash, then come back with enough sorb on to get healed off a direct 50k meteor hit.
Sixen made a great point how you will always have griefers no matter what the game design is. That thing that confuses me though, is without counting hacks/glitches, I don't ever consider myself to have been griefed in D2. Since nobody has any way to track what game I'm in unless I add them as a friend or tell them, and I have the option to squelch whoever I want at any time, theres really nothing you can do to grief anyone. Sure you might be able to sorb my sorc, juv in a duel, camp my corpse, take my gold, but its all legal within the legit limits of the game, its all things I can do right back to you, and its all things that are totally irrelevant as soon as I save/exit and join a different game with different people. I just don't see any legit way to grief someone hard enough to actually screw them in D2.
Nov 4, 2009In the past week one of the topics brought up on twitter was PvP in Diablo III. The entire Diablo series has always been one where the player versus player combat was unstructured. There are no arenas, no real PvP rules, and anyone can kill another player at any time. While the majority of the player base in Diablo II seemed to evolve a structure of some "good manners" rules to create a sort of dueling system, that was by no means the extent of player versus player interactions in Diablo or Diablo II.Posted in: News & Announcements
In order to discuss player versus player combat or "PvP," I believe there are a few terms which need to be defined. One thing we have to realize is that there will always be malicious players out there who enjoy nothing more than ruining your fun. If you're in act 1 game, they kill Andy, if you're in a Baal game, they hostile the party, if you're in a duel game they bring in their drop barb and crash everybody out. Removing these mechanics doesn't remove these players. We're going to call these players griefers and we're going to call griefing a social fact.
Social facts are nothing new and specific to on-line gaming. A social fact is a value shared by a society or a group within it, and the value exists throughout the group. To take this to an extreme, getting rid of PvP won't stop people from griefing other players. Imagine if hardcore had no PvP in Diablo II. You could still train monsters to waypoints, exploit bugs to cause players to damage themselves, and purposefully place others in harm's way. No amount of restrictions will remove the type of players who want to do this. Since there will always be griefers and we can't remove them, in designing a system for PvP we'd need some way to make it as fun for as many people as possible without removing the freedoms other players enjoy. After all, some masochists like to be hunted down and PK'd in hardcore. The most common form of PvP griefing is to kill another player when they do not want to participate in PvP combat. Diablo II's system, and in fact every Diablo game, has enabled this.
In order to understand PvP we will need to understand the two main categories of PvP. Consensual PvP and non-consensual PvP. Consensual PvP is called dueling. Both players agree to duel on specific terms and fight within those rules. The rules are technically enforced by the system creating what we call good manner duels and bad manner duels. Both types of duels adhere to the game's rules (though possibly not the player's rules). For example, many so called good manner duels prohibit the use of rejuvenation potions in Diablo II, but there's no game mechanic that prevents using rejuvenation potions in PvP.
The other form of PvP is non-consensual. In Diablo II this is known as PK. The point where non-consensual PvP is griefing is when one player doesn't want the fight. This makes is pretty much impossible to tell when you're griefing somebody because how would you know which person standing around in a game or fighting a boss would be willing to fight you at that exact moment? My friend Eric loves to be hunted down while he is playing Hardcore, it makes the game fun for him. Many people however do not enjoy this but how do you tell when you're griefing somebody or when you're both having fun? It should be fairly obvious that it is nearly impossible to distinguish when PK is not griefing in an on-line game. This of course leads to a pretty obvious solution to the griefing problem via the PvP system.
It would be pretty easy to just remove world PvP. For all intents with the removal of the old title reward system it happened in World of WarCraft. Currently in Diablo II any player can express hostility to any other player without their permission and kill them at any time. Most people, as is evident from playing in public games, do not enjoy being hunted down and slaughtered by random people on-line. Player versus Player interaction would be restricted to dueling only. This is what most people do anyway, aside from the griefers who hunt down people for sport. This removes the issue of well geared level 95 players entering quest games and decimating groups of level 40 players. In fact it seems like a pretty great solution at first glance.
Some people, however, do want to be hunted down at random and attacked. These sorts of people might find Diablo II game content fairly easy and wish to have the additional challenge of having to fight players while they play through the game. This might seem masochistic, and the group may be small, but these people exist and should not be ignored if they can be accommodated. The sorts of players who enjoy this are commonly those who do not "play to win" but "play to play." So what if their avatar gets killed, they start over. Other players only add challenges and challenges make the game fun. There is a solution for them too, which has worked throughout every Diablo title to date.
We could always not change the PvP system. The current system works. Diablo II is one of the greatest games of all time and the Diablo II hostility system is basically the same as the Diablo hostility system, except it expresses hostility against people hostile to you automatically. It's worked for the Diablo series for over 12 years now and why fix what isn't broken?
The current system is broken though. Sure people have been playing for years and every time I log in to Battle.net there are at least 60,000 people playing during the weekday. There are however forum posts every week about people getting their items destroyed from players killing them dozens of times, and people using exploits to kill hardcore characters which may be impossible for untrained players to notice until it's too late. Some people even profit off griefing by stealing other player's gold to use for gambling and trading. Although some may feel that the "it's fine learn to play" mentality is ok, it is obvious that a great many players are unhappy with the current system.
Currently Jay Wilson, the lead designer of Diablo III, has expressed that the development team is going with the first option of removing world PvP to combat griefing in Diablo III and I have to say it seems like a good idea. In an interview with Jay, he explains that the current design goal is to move away from the lack of "formal support" for PvP in Diablo II. He says:
Official Blizzard Quote:
In the original Diablo and Diablo II PvP was just kind of a switch people turned on and there was no real formal support for it so that's something we want to change but we have not exactly decided how we are going to do that.
I would like to stress that formal support does not by any stretch mean that informal player versus player combat should be removed, or even that one would reduce the draw toward players participating in the other form.
Official Blizzard Quote:
Jay goes on to say the following in another interview with GameSpy:
We'd like there to be a dedicated PvP mode, and we'd like to move away from [how it worked in previous Diablo games] where players just enabled PvP.
Dedicated PvP is good, and as Jay also points out:
Official Blizzard Quote:
... we do not allow the 'hostility mode' that Diablo II had where you can go into town, go hostile, pop back through a town portal, and insta-kill your friend.
I feel that, in the spirit of making the most people happy, we can come to a better solution than simply removing world PvP. Removing world PvP doesn't make everybody happy, excluding the griefers of course, so it might not be the best solution to the problem. We want to make the masochistic players who crave challenges happy too, and it can be done without making the system exploitable by griefers.
Remember, we cannot remove griefers, so in finding a system that makes everybody happy we cannot focus on removing griefers. PvP should not be the tool to scare malicious players out of the game. Exploits should be fixed to stop people from harming others, and worrying about how to deal with untouchable players when you can't just kill them is not within the scope of our solution nor is it within the scope of Jay's current solution.
The first and foremost goal of the PvP system is to remove the ability for people to attack those who do not want it. To this end characters could select PvP or standard upon character creation. This would determine how you wish to play through the game. Standard characters would play through the game content without player interruption and their only player versus player interaction would be in, for the sake of assuming we have learned something from World of WarCraft, dueling arenas. PvP characters would be open to attack from other players, but of course it's a bit more complex than that.
Unlike the two game content oriented modes Hardcore, which is you only live once, and Softcore, which is you are punished for getting your hero killed but the game does not end, PvP and standard characters should not be separated. There are a few reasons for this. The first reason is I do not feel that separating players is good for a community when the separation is not required to maintain the goals of the separation in the first place. Hardcore characters are supposed to be hardcore, you only live once. This means some things players can do in Softcore are not viable strategies in Hardcore. Hardcore in fact makes the player versus environment content more challenging which means the characters are not in fact playing the same game and the character types are incompatible. This would not be the same situation for PvP and standard characters. PvP characters would be playing through the same rules as their standard counterparts in regards to monster interaction and would thusly be playing the same game. This is of course not the only reason to keep PvP and standard characters together. First however I need to explain how the process would work.
The example I am going to use contains five players. Three of these players are completing some sort of quest within the game in a group. One of these players is PvP character. Two of them are not. There is another group of two standard characters. One of these players is nice, but one of these players is a malicious player with intent to PK the PvP character. Besides the PvP character, all characters in the game are standard.
For sake of understanding how the system works better, I'll use Diablo II characters in this situation. The PK character is an assassin class character using melee abilities. The person in the group with her is a paladin with the fanaticism aura active which increases damage for physical attacks, among other things. The PvP character, and our victim in this case, is a druid with the active skill oak sage. Oak sage provides a bonus to the party increasing their maximum life. The other two characters are both amazons and are granting no abilities to the druid.
The Assassin enters town and expresses hostility toward the druid and his party by clicking hostile on the party screen. Note that if there were no PvP characters in the game there would be nobody to hostile and it could not be done. Also note that the druid, even though he is PvP, cannot initiate hostility against a standard character. He would have to wait for the standard character to initiate it.
The druid is hostile back at once. In addition because the assassin is hostile but her party member is not, the paladin in her party no-longer grants his aura's bonus to players he is not hostile with. This means that when attacking the druid, the assassin attacks with her normal damage at her normal rate. The druid on the other hand is hostile back automatically. He is not hostile against the paladin nor has he expressed intent to fight him. If the paladin wanted to join the battle he would also have to express hostility to the druid.
The druid on the other hand is granting his passive oak sage bonus to the two amazons. The non-hostile amazons receive the benefit from the druid's passive skills even though they are not hostile. The amazons have also received an invitation to hostile the assassin. If they wanted they could join the battle to help the druid, for sake of the situation let's say one of them does. Now there are two players hostile to the Assassin's party.
The druid is getting low on life by this point and decides he cannot win the battle. In order to save himself and his precious ear he chooses the save and exit game option. Now we're left with a game that contains 4 standard characters and no hostile characters. The assassin has expressed hostility to the first amazon and she has accepted. The paladin in the assassin's party wishes to join in, since now it's a fair fight and he knows what's happening. Even though there are no PvP characters in the game the amazon has already expressed her intent to engage the Assassin in combat, and because of our previous rule where expressing hostility to a party member expresses hostility to the party the paladin can join in by accepting the challenge. That is only if they want to. The second amazon does not wish to fight and continues slaughtering demons to her heart's content.
Note the difference between this system and the current system. With this method nobody entered the fight who didn't wish to fight. In addition nobody was out of the fight but aiding others who were in the fight via passive skills. If you wanted to aid your teammates you were forced to join the battle. This is great but let's address the apparent weaknesses with such a system and potential alternatives.
The two questions that jump to mind, besides why not separate these character types which we already discussed, are why not choose PvP or standard games on game creation instead and how does this remove griefers. I will address the second point first.
It quite simply doesn't remove griefers. Such a feat is not possible at least accepting the premise that griefing is a social fact. Since we cannot remove those types of players, I dodged the issue completely by removing their ability to grief using the PvP system while keeping in PK. Of course there will be other ways to grief, but that is not within the scope of the PvP system, at least I feel it should not be. Jay Wilson's solution certainly doesn't address the fact that you cannot kill players who are griefing you with it. I currently don't have a better way than Diablo II's current system to do this, and of course we've already seen that system does not work.
In order to solidify the system against griefing however, we must make sure there are safeguards to non-PvP characters participating in world PvP combat. I would suggest the following safety measures, which for obvious reasons would only apply to Softcore games. The first solution I would propose is once a standard character is killed, they are no-longer hostile to any other players, and other players are no-longer hostile to them. This ensures that players cannot corpse camp standard characters or otherwise harm them once the initial battle has taken place. Note this would not apply to PvP characters. The second safeguard I suggest is when other players join a party, or enter a game, they are not automatically hostile to those hostile to their party, the automatic hostility only happens when the initial event is triggered. This is to stop players from playing both sides in order to get very powerful characters in situations where they are fighting standard characters only.
Secondly the character creation issue ties into separation of character types we discussed earlier and of course discourages people from making not only PvP type characters, but PK characters being the characters used to hunt down PK characters. The goal of keeping characters together in game is to broaden the potential pool of people who could attack a PvP created character. If for example you are in a game with two PvP characters and six standard and you know that standard characters cannot attack you, it's going to be fairly easy to watch just one person. If you are in a game and anybody can attack you it makes the game harder, and thusly more fun for the people who would choose the PvP style. Why would we remove fun?
There do need to be incentives to play a PvP character, besides the rush of playing PvP. They don't need to be big incentives but big enough that people on the fence would decide to create a PvP hero. The incentives I thought of are firstly, add finishing the game as a PvP character to the upcoming achievement system for Battle.net 2.0. Achievements make people want to play to reach those goals. This would interest perfectionists and goal oriented players who might not otherwise have the desire to pick PvP. The second reward I feel would be appropriate would be an awesome title. In Diablo II characters were awarded titled for completing a difficulty level and the cooler titles obviously went to the characters who played the more challenging hardcore mode. I suggest giving PvP characters both hardcore and softcore better titles for completing the game on each difficulty. Players would be like "Wow! How do you get that awesome 'avatar of Chuck Norris' title?" Oh, you could say, well you need to make a PvP character.
The final incentive I would suggest for the PvP characters is have player ears, which was the reward for killing other players in Diablo II, similar to a shrunken head or a dog tag, only drop for players killed via PK, not through duels. This would create an incentive to kill PvP characters, especially in hardcore, just to prove you had done it and would allow players to have bounties on PvP characters. Rewards aren't the only thing the system needs to attract players. It also needs to be approachable.
To this end I recommend not restricting interaction between PvP and standard characters. Like battlegroups in World of WarCraft where all types of servers are in one group, PvP and standard characters would play together in arenas. They would also however adventure together, and most importantly be able to trade together. This would allow people to make PvP twinks to PK other players, or make standard characters easily if you had PvP characters. Allowing people this option only makes it more fun, because making the opponents more difficult is the goal with the PvP character type. Better outfitted players fighting you means a more enjoyable gameplay experience and also encourages players to decide to "try" PvP after playing through the game on standard instead of creating another standard character since they can transfer good low level gear to their new PvP character from their standard character.
In addition to approachability and rewards my system offers one final thing that the current design of PvP system does not, that is familiarity with the previous Diablo PvP systems. Instead of adopting completely the system we have in World of WarCraft of separating people into small groups of like-minded players and even then forcing them into arenas to combat each other my system builds on the familiarity of the previous Diablo games by allowing people to express hostility to others whenever they wish in terms of PK while still leaving enormous room for a organized dueling system. The dueling system should have real rewards like World of WarCraft does and both players of PvP and standard characters will be able to enjoy this. Players who wish to have the added challenges of a hostile and unforgiving Diablo experience should also be able to have them, and I feel my system allows players to do this without destroying the experience of those who just want to adventure through the game with their friends safely.
(This was written by KaylinL and posted in his absence.)
In the context of Diablo 2, the only thing I liked about ladder was a fresh restart, in which everyone started off on equal footing and trading was plentiful in the first few months of each reset. Duels and PK'ing was also at its prime during this period, as if you managed to put together a good character quickly you could join games feeling like a god for a while.Posted in: News & Announcements
The whole ranking by experience system was never important to me be. Obviously, bots kinda killed any fun factor for legit people. You waste a day getting your first character to 80, then wake up the next day and see some bots already run up to 93. The other reason I never really cared for it is simply becuase I never planned to go to 99. Pretty much every character could be "completed" by 95 for 1/100th of the time investment.
The achievement factor for me, has always been in joining a pub baal/chaos run and being strong enough to slaughter everyone, or joining a duel game with a friend and owning the game 2v6, or even a 4v4 with another organized team. I would rather enjoy the satisfaction that my game knowledge, trading abilities, time spent farming/leveling/tweaking builds, and skill at the game allows me to killed the toughest things in the realms, other players. Being part of a game where the ground is littered in ears, but not any of mine, is much more enjoyable then seeing my name on a list, that the only reason I'm there is because I've invested enough time.
What it boils down to for me is, so what if you get a special icon for killing baal 1000x or saving up some amount of gold, any of this grind type stuff to me, just indicates that your willing to put your time in, not that you are actually good at the game. Even as far as pvp tracking, D2 is pretty much build A pwns build B, build B pwns build C, build C pwns build A in 1v1 duels with skilled, well geared players. This would obviously just be heavily taken advantage of, making pretty much every elemental based build worthless for duel ranking.
Achievement is running a fast string of runs and having people ask you for advice after they've seen what you can do. Achievement is pwning someone elses baal run for a good laugh. Achievement is knowing I litter the ground with 30 ears for every 1 of mine I drop. Achievement is finding other players I have a good to playing with, or against. Achievement is enjoying a game where I can be the nicest guy around, or the biggest jerk around, whichever I feel like being that day. Achievement is not my name on a list.
Nov 2, 2009Altron posted a message on Griefing, Health Orb Mechanics and More with Jay WilsonI'd be totally down for an arena-style system. It'd be nice to constantly have good and challenging duels. It seems like the hostile system in D2 grew stale as soon as people found out they could get a rise out of people simply by hostiling, throwing hammers everywhere and continuously killing defenseless opponents. Of course, maybe it's different with the expansion duels, I only cared for Diablo II classic duels.Posted in: News & Announcements
Nov 1, 2009Magistrate posted a message on Griefing, Health Orb Mechanics and More with Jay WilsonI'm fixing it as we speak. vlad was banned for a day and created four more accounts to flame everyone.Posted in: News & Announcements
There, all nice and fixed. Back to the topic now, please
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.