Sure why not, but mostly I echo ecu in the idea that setting teams and such would probably be as far as it should go. The more options piled on to the idea of the custom game the less I'd probably like the idea.
What is wrong with people like you? If you don't like pvp cause you are scared of a challenge then just don't play it. Why so many people don't want pvp in this game if it doesn't affect them at all?
I only like oranges so ban all the apples.
I really find it sad how someone always has to drop back to this anti-pvp idea when someone disagrees with something.
"You said no therefore you hate/scared of pvp. You said no to the idea therefore you don't want pvp in the game at all."
It's like diagnosing someone with a mental illness because they used hi instead of hello.
but it also shows people are still enthusiastic about pvp and will take whatever they can get.
And they'll be getting arena, a dedicated PvP experience. You'd think people would actually be happy with that instead of calling for more more more. I mean multiple arenas, a matchmaking system, and probably a few modes of pvp playstyles. Yup, definitely not enough to satisfy a PvPer, but apparently enough for a un "Real PvPer" such as myself. Seriously is there something wrong with waiting for more info versus being dissatisfied with something there's no perfectly concrete information on just a design scheme. I mean if Arena comes out and it has issues then I can see reason to vent, but until then aren't all these 'alternatives' or 'necessary features' kind of preemptive.
The way I see it, they are basically two ways of going about the same thing.
I'm just quoting this as I see it also applies to why not to give the private game pvp. It's essentially doing the same thing a player will likely get in arena. The most it does is start to break up the PvP community ( I know silly me I know nothing about people and how they'll gravitate to like minded groups and consider all other outsiders). After all why play in the arena when you can just duel/hostility and make up your own rules, matches, etc. in a private game? It kind of makes having arena pointless then doesn't it? Instead of a gateway to promote experiencing the full on PvP mode it just becomes an alternative PvP mode. Is an alternative really something that has to even be brought up at this time when nobody but the developers have any insight into the final product?
oh so precious public quest system (which after everything I have read on these forums, I probably will rarely ever venture into.)
Um self-awareness. You're saying we're ruining pvp based on the idea we think that you are ruining pvm. When oddly enough we're trying to promote the idea that what Blizz has proposed isn't bad for either side and that most of this tacked on baggage of ideas of what PVP is/was from D2 doesn't actually work with that and that maybe just maybe that D3 as it's been stated is better in the end for it. Then we have the audacity to ask questions and provide counterpoints to things people have stated as part of an ongoing discussion. Oh and oddly enough a few of the people that have voiced against the various PvP ideas have been PvPers so despite some prominent/memorable PvMers sticking more out in your mind this isn't a PvM vs. PvP debate it's a discussion on ideas of PvP and how it could/might affect the game and its community (which has no reason to be defined as either PvP or PvM. It's a community it can do both) or at least I thought so.
A system that can easily be abused is not a good system. Hostility easy to abuse. Are you saying that that abuse is okay then? To which I personally can't agree. That's the fault in that system, it's not about the little people that didn't grief it is about the many that did. Apparently the many should suffer for the enjoyment of the few.
It's a great way to throw back and have some fun amongst friends and I'm surprised the devs didn't think of it themselves because it should probably have been in diablo 3 to make the transition from d2, as well as other blizzard titles, a smoother and more enjoyable experience.
Or by say promoting a more casual experience in pvp you can throw back and make new friends in the community. What you see as a necessity is not what others see as such. Developers may have actually considered this, but discarded this as it might take away from using the actual arena rather than be a smooth transition. As well as the idea it might be used as a soapbox by some that dueling/hostility is necessary to add to public games if they were in private.
It's almost a ridiculous notion that we're talking about how pvp shouldn't be added because of resources (also) because it's worth being added into the game.
The notion is not about not adding pvp, but a specific form of pvp to the pvm side of things. The fact is that d3 is getting pvp in the form of arenas, for some that's enough apparently.
It's one of, if not the least active forums and all because blizzard decided to distribute a bunch of tinfoil hats and made decisions specifically to influence the psyche of sheeple, "we can't do this because politically correct/acceptable excuse", or, "we didn't want to do this because it would trick the player into thinking the game was something it's not".
Truly Blizzard must be amazing brainwashers then or people are seemingly content with their answer or the pvp community isn't as large as some think or the pvp community has different wants and needs as a whole than the individuals or they're simply waiting patiently for more information rather endless speculation that what they're getting isn't going to be enough. Plenty of answers rather than the tinfoil hat sheeple one.
Instead of worrying about what community will complain about 2 years from now, they should probably be more concerned with making the game the best it can be.
Which is why they aren't including PvP on launch. They weren't satisfied with what they could offer to that part of the community, but apparently that's not good enough a reason.
It would be appreciated by many if there were a greater level of selflessness and compromise. Don't eat up every little thing activision blizzard says about monster slaying pvp etc. It's still diablo and we're still an enthusiastic fanbase who can make even the smallest difference, or at least try.
Some of us more PvM types have offered compromise or agreed with some points, but then in most cases if we disagree PvP types seem to immediately jump to the idea we hate them or that game mode or would somehow like to remove PvP from D3 entirely. In many cases explanations are overlooked, ignored, or misinterpreted with the idea that we are either stupid or willingly being lead by corporate masters. I would appreciate the idea that I'm a thinking human being and capable of looking at the facts presented both parties and draw my own conclusions. Yes it is still Diablo and I am part of an enthusiastic fanbase. I'm trying to make a difference, a pity that I've come to different conclusions than you so we run counterpoint to each other in many cases. Is it also a bad thing to perhaps still hope in some cases that a game developer grows and learns from the past like its community?
Do I care if you duel or hostile in private? No, but it is a feature I see no useful purpose for. If I want PvP I'm willing to accept what is already going to be offered in the game and I will more than likely experience that content alongside friends as well.
Do I care if duel/hostile becomes added to public? Yes, hostile was far to abused in D2 to ever be considered viable in D3. Dueling only seems like hostile's little brother. Not the complete anarchy of its big brother, but a constant potential interrupt to my playing experience.
I need a way to get downtime from arena and downtime from monster slaying, and not just crafting in town.
Have you considered trying RL as downtime? =P
That is a good point and I'll take it as good-natured, some of us do downtime by actually doing something completely different or unrelated from the game.
Yes I'm aware that the people that use a certain function would still use a certain function. The issue would only be in that is that group actually large enough to warrant such effort or support. Personal perceptions of a demographic from in that demographic are often very skewed.
Thanks for the support buddy! You can be my vice pres.
I do not plan on ever becoming or associating more than necessary with someone like that so I will have to decline that offer and no I never gave support to such as you. Such actions and attitudes are what make the internet such a cesspool of hate and ignorance.
If I can't teach you the correct way to think, then you can at least learn what to aspire to be.
You're way of thinking is neither correct nor something to aspire to. You constantly distort or ignore facts. Appear to never read anything and simply wish to create conflict with someone you perceive as being against your ill-defined agenda. If I wanted to get into politics I suppose that would be the way to go.
Once again Adon is the voice of 'reason' via the use of trolling.
Gamble with gold = can of worms because the in game currency of gold can be translated into real world currency via an in built feature of the game. Thus gold could be construed legally to be an actual currency. Thus it could be argued to fall under such laws for gambling with real world currency. That's what's being said.
0
0
0
Nope think auto aim would be a waste of time. I can't believe you would actually suggest that Adon.
0
I really find it sad how someone always has to drop back to this anti-pvp idea when someone disagrees with something.
"You said no therefore you hate/scared of pvp. You said no to the idea therefore you don't want pvp in the game at all."
It's like diagnosing someone with a mental illness because they used hi instead of hello.
0
Yup, whether they're right or wrong. They sure are great.
0
I'm just quoting this as I see it also applies to why not to give the private game pvp. It's essentially doing the same thing a player will likely get in arena. The most it does is start to break up the PvP community ( I know silly me I know nothing about people and how they'll gravitate to like minded groups and consider all other outsiders). After all why play in the arena when you can just duel/hostility and make up your own rules, matches, etc. in a private game? It kind of makes having arena pointless then doesn't it? Instead of a gateway to promote experiencing the full on PvP mode it just becomes an alternative PvP mode. Is an alternative really something that has to even be brought up at this time when nobody but the developers have any insight into the final product?
Um self-awareness. You're saying we're ruining pvp based on the idea we think that you are ruining pvm. When oddly enough we're trying to promote the idea that what Blizz has proposed isn't bad for either side and that most of this tacked on baggage of ideas of what PVP is/was from D2 doesn't actually work with that and that maybe just maybe that D3 as it's been stated is better in the end for it. Then we have the audacity to ask questions and provide counterpoints to things people have stated as part of an ongoing discussion. Oh and oddly enough a few of the people that have voiced against the various PvP ideas have been PvPers so despite some prominent/memorable PvMers sticking more out in your mind this isn't a PvM vs. PvP debate it's a discussion on ideas of PvP and how it could/might affect the game and its community (which has no reason to be defined as either PvP or PvM. It's a community it can do both) or at least I thought so.
0
0
The notion is not about not adding pvp, but a specific form of pvp to the pvm side of things. The fact is that d3 is getting pvp in the form of arenas, for some that's enough apparently.
Truly Blizzard must be amazing brainwashers then or people are seemingly content with their answer or the pvp community isn't as large as some think or the pvp community has different wants and needs as a whole than the individuals or they're simply waiting patiently for more information rather endless speculation that what they're getting isn't going to be enough. Plenty of answers rather than the tinfoil hat sheeple one.
Which is why they aren't including PvP on launch. They weren't satisfied with what they could offer to that part of the community, but apparently that's not good enough a reason.
Some of us more PvM types have offered compromise or agreed with some points, but then in most cases if we disagree PvP types seem to immediately jump to the idea we hate them or that game mode or would somehow like to remove PvP from D3 entirely. In many cases explanations are overlooked, ignored, or misinterpreted with the idea that we are either stupid or willingly being lead by corporate masters. I would appreciate the idea that I'm a thinking human being and capable of looking at the facts presented both parties and draw my own conclusions. Yes it is still Diablo and I am part of an enthusiastic fanbase. I'm trying to make a difference, a pity that I've come to different conclusions than you so we run counterpoint to each other in many cases. Is it also a bad thing to perhaps still hope in some cases that a game developer grows and learns from the past like its community?
Do I care if you duel or hostile in private? No, but it is a feature I see no useful purpose for. If I want PvP I'm willing to accept what is already going to be offered in the game and I will more than likely experience that content alongside friends as well.
Do I care if duel/hostile becomes added to public? Yes, hostile was far to abused in D2 to ever be considered viable in D3. Dueling only seems like hostile's little brother. Not the complete anarchy of its big brother, but a constant potential interrupt to my playing experience.
That is a good point and I'll take it as good-natured, some of us do downtime by actually doing something completely different or unrelated from the game.
0
Whatever you like to think. I'm sure you'll be taking your own little 'vacation' soon enough as well.
0
0
0
I don't see a real problem with either in a private game. The only minor nitpick is how often the feature would actually be used really.
0
0
0
Gamble with gold = can of worms because the in game currency of gold can be translated into real world currency via an in built feature of the game. Thus gold could be construed legally to be an actual currency. Thus it could be argued to fall under such laws for gambling with real world currency. That's what's being said.