View Full Version : Tppk
it's so lame. if you want a fight, do it in a proper duel you pussy kents. thautos you suck.
yes, it's totally lame, but they don't want to duel. That would involve a cetain amount of risk, which these losers aren't prepared to take.
It's a real pity Blizzard value the script kiddies fun more than legitimate players.
DelBoy
Yeah, it's really sad.
I got pkilled today, lost full natalya's set, viper, a couple of bartucs, shaft and more. He opened a portal in throne room, spammed blizzards over the portal and waited for someone to enter. He had a friend down there too, probably so ppl would think it was "safe". I heard the hostile sound, got a screenlag then I was dead.
It's very sad how they don't respect other people. I work atleast 8 hours a day, then I haft to shop for food etc, make dinner and when I manage to get a few moments to myself to play a game I enjoy, someone kills cowardly kills me without having the guts to ask for a legit pkill. In 1 second he destroyed 2 weeks of work, not even mentioning the time it will take to find/trade everything I lost.
I really hope blizzard will do something about this, perhaps adding a option when you create game, like "No Pk" so the hostile button doesnt exist in that game. Or add some kind of timer after someone go hostile against you.
drinkturps
08-02-2006, 12:51
It's one of the reasons that I gave up playing ladder and moved back to Single Player. I must admit I am rather enjoying playing single player and muling is sooo much easier using ATMA. /players8 is the boss!
PerPastill
08-02-2006, 15:25
Amen! It is so annoying it's insane! Why blizzard don't just add the option to create "no-pvp" games like in WoW is beyond me. Takes a developer a week to implement and test, and there you go. Problem solved.
PerPastill
08-02-2006, 15:25
Amen! It is so annoying it's insane! Why blizzard don't just add the option to create "no-pvp" games like in WoW is beyond me. Takes a developer a week to implement and test, and there you go. Problem solved.
PerPastill
08-02-2006, 15:25
Amen! It is so annoying it's insane! Why blizzard don't just add the option to create "no-pvp" games like in WoW is beyond me. Takes a developer a week to implement and test, and there you go. Problem solved.
PerPastill
08-02-2006, 15:25
Sorry about the spamming guys! The board told me something was wrong and that I had to refresh the page... obviously a bad idea!
And why can't you delete posts here hmm...
LuckyDwarf
08-02-2006, 17:40
What's funny is that when I went over to SCNL a few days ago just to putz around in duel games with my hammerdin, a lot of people had this anti-hostile hack. As soon as you clicked hostile on them you automatically unhostiled them, but they were still hostile to you. I'm suprised it hasn't spread here.
Lucky
LuckyDwarf
08-02-2006, 17:40
What's funny is that when I went over to SCNL a few days ago just to putz around in duel games with my hammerdin, a lot of people had this anti-hostile hack. As soon as you clicked hostile on them you automatically unhostiled them, but they were still hostile to you. I'm suprised it hasn't spread here.
Lucky
drinkturps
08-02-2006, 21:45
here's me thinking that I was drunk but it's the forums.......
Speederländer
08-02-2006, 22:11
The only problem is the exploit. Blizzard should remove the ability to fast hostile and for attacks to kill after you have exited an area via tp.
PKing, on the other hand, is part of hardcore. It's no different from any other risk. As long as Blizzard prevent abuse...
The hostile function should never be disabled in hardcore.
Wanna know how to avoid it? Dont play in public games, i havent partied with anyone for the last year or so, and never been tppked :).
Wanna know how to avoid it? Dont play in public games, i havent partied with anyone for the last year or so, and never been tppked :).
This is correct. If you stay in area levels +5/-5 your level the xp is good even solo. Better yet, join public games and do not group with anyone and just xp until they all leave because you ignored them or until they try to come after you. Always play with the map up.
No offense, but Thautos is notoriously famous on West HCL. If you die to Thautos, nobody will feel sorry for you. You should know better to join a game with him let alone be on the same screen as him. He tries to TPPK everyone, that is all he does everday, all day.
Wanna know how to avoid it? Dont play in public games, i havent partied with anyone for the last year or so, and never been tppked :).
not the answer. I was sitting with my lvl 60 pally i'm trying to level in priv runs the other day and thought to myself, "I miss not being able to public run in nightmare." Shouldn't be this way.
Cleglaw_Himself
09-02-2006, 10:08
Bah. I play public games all the time.
Just have to be careful, and there's no problem.
Don't know what everyone is so worried about.
I've been tppk'd only once before - lost an 84 hammerdin to a bonecro a good while back when marrow bug was here.
I doubt it will happen again.
haha right on reyla..
i should've been more careful.
but nevertheless, its still annoying.
after all it is only a game, but cowardly behaviour like that ****s me. like a bad splinter.
I only use pubbie games to level quickly, and then with a char that is wearing crap gear. Once the levelling is done, I then put on any decent (for me !) gear and carry on privately. I get tppk'ed every now and then, usually by real lamers, with characters 40 levels higher than mine.
It sucks, it's annoying and there's not a thing you can do about it. If Blizzard could only fix this problem ... Failing that, I'd prefer a 'no PvP' switch when creating a game, but this has been discussed before :-)
DelBoy
"I miss not being able to public run in nightmare." Shouldn't be this way.
I would argue that "running Baal" 50 times is not how it should be to level. I am currently playing my level 81 Bowazon and I never joined any Baal or Cow runs in Normal, Nightmare or Hell. I follow the +5/-5 area level rule and xp flows smoothly. The following information is a little old and may be slightly different but the +5/-5 efficiency is still the same.
Experience [Originally Posted by Ruvanal]
The values are from an internal table in the games DLLs. For character levels less than 25 it uses the following:
mlvl-clvl exp %
10 5
10 5
9 15
8 36
7 68
6 88
1 to 5 100
-5 to 0 100
-6 81
-7 62
-8 43
-9 24
-10 5
-10 5
For levels of 25 and above the following will be used:
If (mlvl-clvl>0) then experience is adjusted by clvl/mlvl else use the values from the above table (clvl of 0 to <-10).
At clvl 76 to 80 divide experience by 2.
At clvl 81 to 85 divide experience by 3.
At clvl 86 to 90 divide experience by 4.
At clvl 91+ divide experience by 5.
HelzCaretaker
10-02-2006, 06:08
Blizzard could fix tppk very easily, but they don't. Makes you really want to buy other games of theirs. They care less for hardcore then they do about the weather in the middle of a cave.
Im sure this is an old topic, but tppk is so public now and there is [link deleted member banned] but apparently it isnt a hack, just a bot. I lost too many characters to tppks and now I have become what I hate the most... hopefully next ladder Blizzard will end this crap and make everyone duel it out instead of being chickens and doing this kind of stuff. :sunny:
Socialism
29-07-2006, 11:34
Looks like Javazin's doing marketing for TPPK. Gogo 1 post wonder.
TPPK is what I like to call BS. I've never been TPPKed, but the threat has made me play solo a lot more than I'd like to.
ZappaFan
29-07-2006, 19:02
And voila! Reported!
And viola! Banned!
Amen! It is so annoying it's insane! Why blizzard don't just add the option to create "no-pvp" games like in WoW is beyond me. Takes a developer a week to implement and test, and there you go. Problem solved.
Or better yet- just make hostiling a mutal agreement. Imagine if whenever the trade screen was open, either party could click accept at any time and the trade would be completed. That's basically what hostiling is at the moment. Blizzard should make it so that when someone tries to hostile you, you can either accept or decline their request, just like in a trade. Otherwise, Blizzard is saying that they would much rather protect duped gear than legit characters.
Hp_Sauce
30-07-2006, 03:19
Or better yet- just make hostiling a mutal agreement. Imagine if whenever the trade screen was open, either party could click accept at any time and the trade would be completed. That's basically what hostiling is at the moment. Blizzard should make it so that when someone tries to hostile you, you can either accept or decline their request, just like in a trade. Otherwise, Blizzard is saying that they would much rather protect duped gear than legit characters.
ermmm... how is hostile not being a mutual thing a support of duped gear?
And last time someone got robbed do you think the robber stopped to let their victim agree to it first? Or do you think the last person who got murdered agreed to it first?
No body on battle.net would agree to allow them selves to be hostiled against if this was implamented, which would make pking, and the legit hunt totaly non-existant.
No, there is nothing wrong with the hostile button, or the pk option. Its simply the magic skills that remain after a player has teleported to town that need to be fixed.
-hps
ermmm... how is hostile not being a mutual thing a support of duped gear?
Blizzard protects the trade screen, which is frequently used as a means of transferring and even duping gear, but not hostiling. That's protecting duped gear but not legit chars.
And last time someone got robbed do you think the robber stopped to let their victim agree to it first? Or do you think the last person who got murdered agreed to it first?
The last time I checked, robbery and murder were both illegal.
No body on battle.net would agree to allow them selves to be hostiled against if this was implamented, which would make pking, and the legit hunt totaly non-existant.
Oh, no one would agree to it, so it's stupid to give them the choice?
What if there was the opposite available. What if there was a magical "friendly" button, and I could click it to automatically add you to my party and make it so that you couldn't leave the game or get more than 2 screens away from me? How would you like it if I forced you to do full clears of the Swampy Pit and walk everywhere instead of getting waypoints, because that's the way that *I* like to play? If a PK hostiles me, he is forcing me to cease playing the game the way that I want to play it, and instead forcing me to play the game the way *HE* wants to play it. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing to him?
No, there is nothing wrong with the hostile button, or the pk option. Its simply the magic skills that remain after a player has teleported to town that need to be fixed.
-hps
I'd say there is definitely something wrong with the hostile button: the fact that it's created this idea that it's somehow okay to bully and abuse complete strangers over the internet. Because that's really what it is- it's bullying. It's saying "either quit this game that you were enjoying and having a good time in before I came along, or prepare for me to come after you with a character that is, in all likelihood, drastically superior to your own, potentially dozens of levels above you, and possibly augmented with hacks, cheats, dupes, and bugs to make it even more formidable, knowing fully well that I will not stop until I have completely spoiled all the countless hours of work you have put into creating this."
If you were in 2nd grade, your teacher would put you in time out and schedule a parent/teacher conference. It's bullying, masked by the thin veneer of anonymity of the internet. I don't know if you are just unaware of how annoying it is to everyone else, or if you just don't feel your sense of reciprocity telling you to be decent to your fellow man. I only hope that you never find yourself in the position where people run roughshod over your work and preferences and then try to convince you afterwards that there was nothing wrong with it. That's not something I'd wish on someone.
I've hostiled something like two people in my time after they tried to TPPK me, or looked like they were going to, just to get them to leave. That said, I don't have a problem with the hostile button. Hostiling people has been a part of the game for so long that it would not make sense to redesign it. Just avoid the people who PK for the hell of it. There really aren't that many who will legitimately hostile you (as opposed to the ever popular TPPKing). What is a problem is TPPK.
Socialism
30-07-2006, 09:20
It's bullying, masked by the thin veneer of anonymity of the internet. I don't know if you are just unaware of how annoying it is to everyone else, or if you just don't feel your sense of reciprocity telling you to be decent to your fellow man. I only hope that you never find yourself in the position where people run roughshod over your work and preferences and then try to convince you afterwards that there was nothing wrong with it. That's not something I'd wish on someone.
I was moved by this post.
SSoG, you are indeed an artisan of the keyboard.
What does SSoG stand for?
And viola! Banned!
(voila, not viola!)
Cheers! :thumbsup:
It's bullying, masked by the thin veneer of anonymity of the internet. I don't know if you are just unaware of how annoying it is to everyone else, or if you just don't feel your sense of reciprocity telling you to be decent to your fellow man. I only hope that you never find yourself in the position where people run roughshod over your work and preferences and then try to convince you afterwards that there was nothing wrong with it. That's not something I'd wish on someone.
Well put. Almost makes me not want to pk... Almost.
What does SSoG stand for?
I've had several AIM screen names. The initials for all of them have been SSoG. I keep SSoG as my forum names so that if I ever i/m anyone, they can figure out who I am. It's nice, because I've never had a problem with it already being registered. :)
If a PK hostiles me, he is forcing me to cease playing the game the way that I want to play it, and instead forcing me to play the game the way *HE* wants to play it. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing to him?
I think your comparison is a little drastic. The pk has hostiled you but has not "forced" you to do anything. You can continue playing how you want with the additional risk implemented by another player. What is the difference between that and someone sending you a trapped portal while in your party? You are still playing the game you want, the player has created an unexpected risk to your game and if you continue playing in your party (take the tp), you could potentially die. Is this scenerio also PKing? I'd have to say by the definition, no it isn't. It especially has nothing to do with the hostile button however holds the same implications.
Your comparision between forcing a player to follow you is basically turning a person into a merc vs creating an added risk but not really changing any elements of the game or free will.
come after you with a character that is, in all likelihood, drastically superior to your own, potentially dozens of levels above you, and possibly augmented with hacks, cheats, dupes, and bugs to make it even more formidable, knowing fully well that I will not stop until I have completely spoiled all the countless hours of work you have put into creating this."
- my pks are definately drastically superior.
This is not my fault and my pks cannot be held accountable. It is not my fault that my lvl 12 is superior to anothers lvl 27. I have no remorse that the person I killed was a weaker character then me if they have the same opportunities to be equally as good if not better.
- mine are potentially dozens of levels beneath you. Very rare I pk anyone lower than myself.
I use characters such as a lvl 10 or a lvl 12 to pk anything from 9 - 30 and sometimes 40. I don't typically hunt anything 9-12 but if they stick their nose out I'll hack it off. A party of 6 or 7 lvl 20s can certainly deal with a lvl 12, but the majority of these people are all looking out for themselves and don't play together as a team.
If I'm leveling a character and I was 27 and a lvl 12 attempted to pk me, I would have that level 12's ear in a second. So should i yield because another 27 cannot hold his or her own against a lvl 12? I am in no way diablo wealthy so the excuse that they have just started and have no stuff to defend themselves doesn't fly with me.
- no hacks, cheats, dupes or bugs
Speaks for itself. This discussion is about the hostile button not about tppk.
- if I don't get quick kills I move on to a new game. I don't hunt anyone personally. I go for challenging ears or games where I can pick up multiple ears.
I don't have any concern about ruining other peoples "hours of work." Frankly if you are a PVM player and consider building your character "work" then you take diablo too seriously in the first place.
If you were in 2nd grade, your teacher would put you in time out and schedule a parent/teacher conference. It's bullying, masked by the thin veneer of anonymity of the internet. I don't know if you are just unaware of how annoying it is to everyone else, or if you just don't feel your sense of reciprocity telling you to be decent to your fellow man. I only hope that you never find yourself in the position where people run roughshod over your work and preferences and then try to convince you afterwards that there was nothing wrong with it. That's not something I'd wish on someone.
You mentioned that robbery and murder are illegal. Fair enough. Is game-hunting illegal in a place where it is clearly labelled "hunting season?"
By having the hostile button the way they do blizzard has declared that hostiling players is completely acceptable. They added the 10 second waypoint feature to prevent unfair tactics which I think is a fair compromise.
Is it a form of bullying? Sure I won't argue with you there. Is it nearly as drastic as paralleling illegal activities and describing the pk as some grade 2 who gets his jollies from ruining other people's fun? of course not.
You have to remember when you come on these forums to debate it you are mostly arguing against legit pkers who pride themselves on a challenge and technique.
I think you write a very well written argument and respect your views.
I used to be an avid PKK. Only people I would ever kill were those who tried to kill the "helpless." After doing this very successfully in .09 I simply grew very tired of spending my efforts to defend not only the helpless but also the ignorant. Having spent a great amount of time on both sides of the line I found that there are equally and often more ignorant and rude people playing PVM then you have on the PVP side of the fence. Because of this and the combination of maphack I slowly became PVP (anything) instead of simply just killing pks.
Socialism
31-07-2006, 00:29
The plot thickens -- into a dusky, murky goo!
BongoFury
31-07-2006, 04:20
... legit pkers who pride themselves on a challenge and technique...Challenge? Pu-leeze. If 'legit PKs wanted a challenge, they'd duel. Instead, they use their finely honed PvP skills against PvM players who most likely have no clue regarding the techniques and tactics of PvP. And level difference is the biggest fraud going when talking about a challenge. Your L12 is twinked to the gills with their end game skills in place. Most L27s have a good chunk of their skill points saved up for higher level skills. And I rarely twink a character before NM. So like I said, the level difference you're bragging about doesn't mean squat. I can beat Normal Diablo (a L28 monster) with a L12 Necro using IM and a Clay Golem. Is it skillful on my part, or a challenge? Heck no, it's a cheezy exploit of game mechanics and inferrior opponent intelligence. Same as the 'legit PK'. The only kills you're getting are against inexperienced opponents and underdeveloped characters. And you call that a challenge? And you're proud of this?
obviously you've never pked a baal run with a lvl 12. If you had you wouldn't have made that post. Since I have actual experience on both sides I'll stick to my opinion thank you as it is less bias.
edit: i also will not bother checking this thread again because as i aimed for an intelligent discussion with the member who I aimed my replies towards instead I was redirected into an ongoing beating of a dead horse with a member who've i've already done this with before.
/aaron out
Socialism
31-07-2006, 05:47
Well, obviously he's never pk'd a Baal run with a level 12; I doubt you have, either.
Sub-level-20s can't get into the Worldstone Keep, unless you're HAXZZORING!@#()$!
MoUsE_WiZ
31-07-2006, 06:08
If a PK hostiles me, he is forcing me to cease playing the game the way that I want to play it, and instead forcing me to play the game the way *HE* wants to play it. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing to him?
Because you chose to play a game in which PKing is completely viable and supported by the developers. If there was a game mechanic that allowed for what you suggested I doubt I'd have played as much D2 as I have over the years. If you feel PKing is on par with what you've described I'd suggest finding a new game because it really doesn't sound fun for you.
I think your comparison is a little drastic. The pk has hostiled you but has not "forced" you to do anything. You can continue playing how you want with the additional risk implemented by another player. What is the difference between that and someone sending you a trapped portal while in your party? You are still playing the game you want, the player has created an unexpected risk to your game and if you continue playing in your party (take the tp), you could potentially die. Is this scenerio also PKing? I'd have to say by the definition, no it isn't. It especially has nothing to do with the hostile button however holds the same implications.
Your comparision between forcing a player to follow you is basically turning a person into a merc vs creating an added risk but not really changing any elements of the game or free will.
I would define PKing as taking any action for the express purpose of killing another player's character. So yes, I consider intentionally trapping portals to be PKing. I would also say that yes, PKs do "force" me to do something. They force me to either leave the game that I was enjoying, or to rebuild my character. It's not a matter of increased risk- it's a matter of creating an impossible obstacle. I would stand just as much chance defeating a PK as I would of defeating Hell Diablo in Normal difficulty.
- my pks are definately drastically superior.
This is not my fault and my pks cannot be held accountable. It is not my fault that my lvl 12 is superior to anothers lvl 27. I have no remorse that the person I killed was a weaker character then me if they have the same opportunities to be equally as good if not better.
So basically you're saying "survival of the fittest"? You're saying that nobody should be allowed to build deviant characters, because they're sub-optimal? What if a person was attempting what Superdave is currently doing- soloing the game using only cracked gear and Amazon Passive skills. Would you feel that since you had a superior character, you were entitled to kill them?
I build my characters to make PvM both fun and challenging. Yes, your character is going to be dramatically superior to mine. That *IS* your fault, and you *CAN* be held responsible, because you chose to optimize your character for the express purpose of killing mine.
- mine are potentially dozens of levels beneath you. Very rare I pk anyone lower than myself.
I use characters such as a lvl 10 or a lvl 12 to pk anything from 9 - 30 and sometimes 40. I don't typically hunt anything 9-12 but if they stick their nose out I'll hack it off. A party of 6 or 7 lvl 20s can certainly deal with a lvl 12, but the majority of these people are all looking out for themselves and don't play together as a team.
If I'm leveling a character and I was 27 and a lvl 12 attempted to pk me, I would have that level 12's ear in a second. So should i yield because another 27 cannot hold his or her own against a lvl 12? I am in no way diablo wealthy so the excuse that they have just started and have no stuff to defend themselves doesn't fly with me.
What about the excuse that they build a Taunt-based Barbarian? Taunt doesn't work in PvP (although it works quite splendidly in PvM). What if their primary skill had absolutely no effect in PvP situations. Would that excuse "fly" with you? Not every player builds nothing but Hammerdins and Chargeadins, you know- nor should they have to.
- if I don't get quick kills I move on to a new game. I don't hunt anyone personally. I go for challenging ears or games where I can pick up multiple ears.
Hey, that's great. It'd be a valid arguement if all PKers behaved like you. They don't, so it's not.
I don't have any concern about ruining other peoples "hours of work." Frankly if you are a PVM player and consider building your character "work" then you take diablo too seriously in the first place.
I'm a musician. I enjoy composing and arranging music. Sometimes I will spend 10, 20, or even 30 hours arranging a piece to my satisfaction. If someone came along and destroyed that work after it was done, I would be EXTREMELY upset. This isn't because I take music too seriously, and this isn't because I view music as a chore or an otherwise onerous task. It's because I poured many hours of work into something, and it was callously destroyed without any regard for my own personal feelings. Someone just came along and decided to force me to re-spend those hours in order to achieve that finished product that I was going for. They decided to greatly inconvenience me for no other reason than personal pleasure. That is a very immature attitude to take- one that I liken to vandalism. Actually, I think that's a very good comparison- PKing is very similar to vandalism.
You mentioned that robbery and murder are illegal. Fair enough. Is game-hunting illegal in a place where it is clearly labelled "hunting season?"
By having the hostile button the way they do blizzard has declared that hostiling players is completely acceptable. They added the 10 second waypoint feature to prevent unfair tactics which I think is a fair compromise.
I only mentioned that robbery and murder were illegal because somone else mentioned them to try to make their point. I never would have brought up either of the two, because I feel that making sensationalistic comparisons only weakens your point.
You bring up game hunting. That's a better comparison, but still a fundamentally flawed one. The entire premise behind hunting is that we are fundamentally, morally, and otherwise in all ways superior to that which we are hunting. In fact, the premise is that we are so superior that our most minor desires and needs- such as our desire for entertainment- outweigh the largest and most pressing needs of that which we hunt- basically, the need to live and reproduce. Do you honestly feel like you are just fundamentally superior in all ways to the people you PK? Do you feel that your most trivial of whim should be considered superior to theirs? Because if not, you've already admitted that the analogy is flawed. Even if you think that you are somehow genetically superior to everyone else- even if you are the real life version of Nietzsche's Superman- the analogy is still flawed. Game hunting is heavily regulated. PKing is not.
Also, just because Blizzard hasn't stopped PKing doesn't mean it's right. Lots of things are unregulated but still morally and ethically wrong. It is not our duty as human beings to blindly follow what we are told and to assume there is nothing wrong with anything that is not expressly forbidden. It is our duty as human beings to think for ourselves- to form rational and researched opinions- even when those opinions diverge from those of the masses. It is our duty to question. Anything else is an insult to our own intellects.
Is it a form of bullying? Sure I won't argue with you there. Is it nearly as drastic as paralleling illegal activities and describing the pk as some grade 2 who gets his jollies from ruining other people's fun? of course not.
I never parrelleled it to illegal activities- someone else did, I was merely responding to their arguement. I also never compared PKers to 2nd-graders. If anything, I did the opposite, by saying that people in a position of authority would attempt to show a 2nd grader just how wrong their actions were, while no such authority figure exists for PKs (mostly because of Blizzard's laissez faire attitude towards PKing in general). As for comparing it to someone who gets his jollies from ruining other people's fun... isn't that exactly what it is?
You have to remember when you come on these forums to debate it you are mostly arguing against legit pkers who pride themselves on a challenge and technique.
I think you write a very well written argument and respect your views.
I used to be an avid PKK. Only people I would ever kill were those who tried to kill the "helpless." After doing this very successfully in .09 I simply grew very tired of spending my efforts to defend not only the helpless but also the ignorant. Having spent a great amount of time on both sides of the line I found that there are equally and often more ignorant and rude people playing PVM then you have on the PVP side of the fence. Because of this and the combination of maphack I slowly became PVP (anything) instead of simply just killing pks.
Even "legit" PKers are still bullies, in my opinion. Granted, they are more courteous bullies who at least give you the option of quitting the game you were enjoying before they came along rather than just killing you outright- but bullies nevertheless.
I will also agree that there are ignorant or outright rude people on the PvM side of the fence. I guarantee you that I spend plenty of time preaching against the evils of duping and trading for likely dupes, too- since that, much like PKing, is simply declaring your own desires and enjoyments to be fundamentally superior to those of all others on Battlenet.
However, if that was a sound arguement, then there would only be one person in prison in the entire world. Every case that went to court would be argued "Sure, what my client did was wrong... but it wasn't as wrong as what _______ did!"
I don't think you're a bad person because you PK, and I certainly enjoy the chance to discuss the issue with a rational human being, but I quite simply cannot support your point of view.
Because you chose to play a game in which PKing is completely viable and supported by the developers. If there was a game mechanic that allowed for what you suggested I doubt I'd have played as much D2 as I have over the years. If you feel PKing is on par with what you've described I'd suggest finding a new game because it really doesn't sound fun for you.
First off, PKing doesn't bother me in the slightest in an actual real-world consequences sort of way. I play in an entirely PK-free environment. I've never even been hostiled by another player, except for once to give me an example of what it sounded like. I promise you, I'm not losing any sleep over the PK problem on Battlenet.
The reason PKing bothers me isn't from a personal standpoint, it's from an ethical standpoint. PKing is the act of declaring your desires to be superior to those of your targets. That is, in my opinion, a morally indefensible stance. Yes, it's supported by Blizzard, but a lack of deterrents should never be viewed as a moral imperative. While I just said that I try to stay away from sensationalistic arguements, I feel it is important to point out that it was once legal to beat your spouse and own slaves. That doesn't mean it was right.
I don't think PKing is anywhere NEAR the level of physical abuse or slavery. It's an irritation- frequently just a minor irritation- and nothing more. The point remains, however, that just because it is allowed does not necessarily make it morally right.
Socialism
31-07-2006, 08:11
I don't think you're a bad person because you PK, and I certainly enjoy the chance to discuss the issue with a rational human being, but I quite simply cannot support your point of view.
Yeah, but not me; I think you're a bad person, Azazazazaz.
Once again, the wordsmith trounces upon his would-be carnivore assailants with the grace of a gazelle, speeding off into the far reaches of the savannah.
SSoG, it is a pleasure to read your persuasion.
I can't believe I have a forum-crush.
I need some new hobbies.
Pax et lux, hombres.
Nilaripper
31-07-2006, 10:06
My two cents to legit Pking and Tppk:
I dont like the Pks,not because they are "evil" or something,its just no fun for me to kill an char of somebody who put work and time in it to build it.I know that there are a lot of Pks on this board and they are maybe the best source of information on how to stat/skill a char to be effective.Legit Pking is a myth right now,because i havent seen any of them for months.I got pked by a Lvl 6x sorc in an enchant game(she killed my lvl15 barb equipped with ravenclaw bow),she said:"thats the revenge for you pkeing my char!",which is amusing because i never ever pked a char myself.Thats the pking i see when i play public online:a high lvl char kills a char which is at least 30-40 lvls lower than his.I lost a char(lvl25 sorc) in a normal baalrun to a 9x infi light sorc.
Legit Pking lead to Tppking...everybody wanted to make a char who can single hit kill almost all others.Tppking is not respected on this board,so no need to make too much comments about it.Hammerdins cannot tppk because the hammers vanish when they go to town.Blizzard should patch this for all other classes and tppk would be gone.
Tppk forced me to build a sorc which i never would have built this way if Tppk wouldnt exist:My immune to elemental attacks sorc.She is lvl95 right now and plays public baalruns only.ALL Tppks in europe HCL know my char, tried to kill the sorc without success.The secret is stacked resis(460coldres), thundergod and hotspur,dual ravens.My only enemies are winddrus and bowazons (bonenecs seem not to exist in public baals after patched marrowwalks).
appreciate your replies SSoG, I've echoed this idea in a few threads like this one before.:thumbsup:
I especially can appreciate your comparison to your compositions...Diablo is not like many of the games where death is a reality, such as first person shooters (halo anyone?) where there is no involvement in the charectars. You can spend hours and days investing in building your charectar in diablo only to have it taken away thorugh someone else's choice...
In most "death is a reality" games the charectar development involves choosing a color. Oh, yeah and you can die dozens of times and its no big deal...you start over again within a few seconds. Not so in Diablo.
So I have never accepted the "its just a game" excuse. I dont feel its justified in this situation. Now, having played HC for quite some time, I have learned (as many do) much of the survivial skills to make it and avoid the pk'ers in general. And i have also been pk'ed in a very normal and decent (if you can call it that) fashion. I can accept that. I DO wish that they would provide some means of eliminating the tppk. that is a sad thing.
I agree with Nilaripper in the sense that legit pk'ing is a vertiable ghost...I would be happy to see those who post decent and legible arguements for pk'ing on these threads in actual gameplay. However, the bulk that I see (close to 99%) are simply the cowards. the high lvl's creating chant games to kill lvl 12's, the sorc running baal runs who open hot tp's and laugh when u die...
:cry:
My current frustration is with the overpowering presence of pking has all but eliminated pub games in NM and hell. To me, this is part of the fun of playing online (otherwise I would just play SP...wich i do do but its not the same). I would like to see a safe enough environment that we might see a turn around in this. I enjoy playing with folks online...and its a downer when you get hostiled in 3 games in a row.
Play solo? I've leveled my druid back up to 80th now, running solo the whole way, and am wondering why i am not playing SP. I would level faster there. If the bnet is for gamers to play together, I feel the overbearing presence of pk/tppk has reduced that dramatically, thus ruining the purpose of the bnet in the first place. I would place the emphasis in tppk, unfortunately the legit pk'ers are few and far in between when i play. And it seems that they are the only ones who respond to these threads, which are usually our frustrations with tppk, which they do not do.
Malachi
MoUsE_WiZ
31-07-2006, 11:42
Yes, it's supported by Blizzard, but a lack of deterrents should never be viewed as a moral imperative.
Agreed, I can think of plenty of examples, and I'm sure you can think of more. However I don't agree that it is in any way immoral for me to PK you, or anyone else. I wouldn't consider a level 99 PKing a level 9 immoral, nor would I consider a trapped portal immoral. Why? Because it's part of the rules.
The closest analogy I can think of off hand is a boxing match. If I were to walk up to someone on the street and punch them in the face there would clearly be something wrong with that, however in a ring I could potentially end a career you'd spent years on with the same action. Would you consider that immoral?
I feel that PKing in D2 is in the same boat. Please don't tell me that dueling exists for that very reason, you are choosing to play the game in which you can hostile anyone at any time and can be hostiled by anyone at any time. It is within the rules of the game to PK, non-consentual PvP is part of the game, you can try to avoid it but by choosing to play the game you are choosing to force yourself to have to avoid it if you don't want to participate in it.
I don't consider the fact that boxing is consentual and the hostile button is not a flaw in my analogy. I expect you might consider the fact that a boxer is not necessarily out to cause harm to his opponent outside of what is required to win a match whereas a PK is out to waste his opponent's time a flaw. To that I'd respond that D2 is a game of time. If you want to excel at the game you have to manage your time well. It is within the rules of the game to force others to waste their time. Every ear that drops is more demand for what meph drops, more customers for forge rushes, less competition on the ladder, and less people that could potentially turn around and do the same to me. I'd concede that aside from very limited cases any PK is probably just, or at least mostly, out for the ear, but I would be interested in hearing a response none the less.
Now, just because a PK is out there just to make your character dead doesn't mean he wants to make you cry and it doesn't mean he's happy because he's made you sad. People play D2 for plenty of different reasons, and for me one of the big ones is the rush. Dueling and intentionally underpowered characters might be bigger indications of skills, or at least a willingness to spend time, but to me there is no rush like hostiling a party without the slightest idea as to what their gear is like, if one of them is going to be waiting at the bottom of the stairs to the throne room, or if they're all going to stick around to try to kill me as a team. True more often than not IF anyone sticks around it's because they don't realize my 21 paladin does more damage and has more life than their level 40, they'll be happily killing monsters, and they'll be the only one down there as everyone else is thinking about their own hide and is hiding up in town, but that doesn't mean it happens every time. It's that uncertainty that provides the rush.
True, this leaves plenty of dead unhappy people, but they do have other options. They can bring a character to try and grab my ear or scare me off depending on the character. They can leave. They could actually try working as a team to kill me. They could make a PKK and sit around in baal runs waiting. If your idea of playing a game, in which non-consentual PvP is a part, involves not PvPing you're pretty much stuck with leaving. Unfortunately for you this is the way you've chosen to play the game, and this is the game you've chosen to play. You could make other choices but you've haven't. My idea of playing the game involves non-consentual PvP, it is the rules of the game and not what I consider immoral that dictates my behavior.
It's too bad that you feel upset when you get PKed or annoyed when you stand in town or switch games, but it's also too bad when you break an ankle playing hockey. It is a fundamental part of the game and the only way to change that is to find a new game. There's plenty of good RPGs out there that let you sink plenty of time into them without fear of PKs. Even if you can't find one in which death is permanent that's as easy to simulate as a hack free environment on single player. If playing intentionally underpowered characters gives you the challenge you seek, playing a completely new game that you don't know like the back of your hand might provide the same challenge.
Edit: wow, that's a bit longer than I'd intended. If I'm redundant and/or incoherent I apologize, it's almost 4 am and I didn't quite mean to type that much. Can't bring myself to shorten it though... I took the time to type it, you get to take the time to see it and decide whether or not to read it, you've been warned ^^
Perceval
31-07-2006, 13:00
PK'ing is part of the game, don't want to get pk'ed ? Play smart...
I especially can appreciate your comparison to your compositions...Diablo is not like many of the games where death is a reality, such as first person shooters (halo anyone?) where there is no involvement in the charectars.
Play solo? I've leveled my druid back up to 80th now.
Malachi
Let's not bring Halo into this it's not a fair comparison and quite frankly you're wrong for doing so. I play Halo in Tournaments and I guarntee there is more skill and strategy involved than there is in Diablo 2. There is quite a bit of character involvement. From things as simple as what the character (Master Chief) can do. It's about knowing the limits of the character as you know the limits of your character in Diablo 2 to avoiding PKs or avoiding death in PvM. It is ingrained into my brain, how far I can throw a gernade, how many shots it takes with various weapons to kill someone, how far I can jump, what jumps I can make, the list goes on and on...
What realm do you play on? I'm on East and I'd love to play with you.
I find it funny that mouse warned us at the end. You could of saved me alot of time mouse. :)
MoUsE_WiZ
31-07-2006, 21:55
More fun for me the other way though ;)
Agreed, I can think of plenty of examples, and I'm sure you can think of more. However I don't agree that it is in any way immoral for me to PK you, or anyone else. I wouldn't consider a level 99 PKing a level 9 immoral, nor would I consider a trapped portal immoral. Why? Because it's part of the rules.
The closest analogy I can think of off hand is a boxing match. If I were to walk up to someone on the street and punch them in the face there would clearly be something wrong with that, however in a ring I could potentially end a career you'd spent years on with the same action. Would you consider that immoral?
I feel that PKing in D2 is in the same boat. Please don't tell me that dueling exists for that very reason, you are choosing to play the game in which you can hostile anyone at any time and can be hostiled by anyone at any time. It is within the rules of the game to PK, non-consentual PvP is part of the game, you can try to avoid it but by choosing to play the game you are choosing to force yourself to have to avoid it if you don't want to participate in it.
I don't consider the fact that boxing is consentual and the hostile button is not a flaw in my analogy. I expect you might consider the fact that a boxer is not necessarily out to cause harm to his opponent outside of what is required to win a match whereas a PK is out to waste his opponent's time a flaw. To that I'd respond that D2 is a game of time. If you want to excel at the game you have to manage your time well. It is within the rules of the game to force others to waste their time. Every ear that drops is more demand for what meph drops, more customers for forge rushes, less competition on the ladder, and less people that could potentially turn around and do the same to me. I'd concede that aside from very limited cases any PK is probably just, or at least mostly, out for the ear, but I would be interested in hearing a response none the less.
Now, just because a PK is out there just to make your character dead doesn't mean he wants to make you cry and it doesn't mean he's happy because he's made you sad. People play D2 for plenty of different reasons, and for me one of the big ones is the rush. Dueling and intentionally underpowered characters might be bigger indications of skills, or at least a willingness to spend time, but to me there is no rush like hostiling a party without the slightest idea as to what their gear is like, if one of them is going to be waiting at the bottom of the stairs to the throne room, or if they're all going to stick around to try to kill me as a team. True more often than not IF anyone sticks around it's because they don't realize my 21 paladin does more damage and has more life than their level 40, they'll be happily killing monsters, and they'll be the only one down there as everyone else is thinking about their own hide and is hiding up in town, but that doesn't mean it happens every time. It's that uncertainty that provides the rush.
True, this leaves plenty of dead unhappy people, but they do have other options. They can bring a character to try and grab my ear or scare me off depending on the character. They can leave. They could actually try working as a team to kill me. They could make a PKK and sit around in baal runs waiting. If your idea of playing a game, in which non-consentual PvP is a part, involves not PvPing you're pretty much stuck with leaving. Unfortunately for you this is the way you've chosen to play the game, and this is the game you've chosen to play. You could make other choices but you've haven't. My idea of playing the game involves non-consentual PvP, it is the rules of the game and not what I consider immoral that dictates my behavior.
It's too bad that you feel upset when you get PKed or annoyed when you stand in town or switch games, but it's also too bad when you break an ankle playing hockey. It is a fundamental part of the game and the only way to change that is to find a new game. There's plenty of good RPGs out there that let you sink plenty of time into them without fear of PKs. Even if you can't find one in which death is permanent that's as easy to simulate as a hack free environment on single player. If playing intentionally underpowered characters gives you the challenge you seek, playing a completely new game that you don't know like the back of your hand might provide the same challenge.
Edit: wow, that's a bit longer than I'd intended. If I'm redundant and/or incoherent I apologize, it's almost 4 am and I didn't quite mean to type that much. Can't bring myself to shorten it though... I took the time to type it, you get to take the time to see it and decide whether or not to read it, you've been warned ^^
Again, I just feel like your analogies are fundamentally flawed. The two biggest flaws in every arguement you've made so far is intent and consent. Boxing is a CONSENTUAL sport. There is never a case in Boxing where one participant is standing around beating on a speed-bag (i.e. playing PvM) when another player comes up and just suckerpunches him upside the head (i.e. plays PvP). There's never even a case in boxing where someone is punching on a speed bag (i.e. playing PvM) and another boxer comes up and says "You must fight me or get out of this gym" (i.e. PvP or leave the game). Some people like to perform boxing-like activities (such as Tai-Bo or whatever) for nothing more than cardiovascular reasons, avoiding all conflict whatsoever. And they're allowed to. That's not the case in Diablo, so the analogy is flawed.
As for the Hockey analogy... again, it's one of intent. Yes, it's possible to accidentally get your ankle broken in Hockey. It's also possible for someone to accidentally kill your character by creating a hot TP and not warning you. However, in Hockey, if someone comes along with the INTENTION of breaking your ankle, then he will be *HEAVILY PENALIZED*. Here is what happens (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1756628) when a hockey player goes out and intentionally injures another hockey player. No such consequences exist in Diablo.
In fact, there's not a sport out there where you are allowed to intentionally injure another person without their consent- which is what PKing is. If you can somehow find a sport that allows intent and does not require consent, then you will finally have yourself a decent analogy, and we'll discuss it at that time. Until then, I just have to say, every analogy you've presented has been one-sided or fundamentally flawed.
Even if you do manage to come up with a real-world analogy, though, I still maintain that it's wrong. Whether it's allowed or not, it eventually comes down to placing your desires above those of your victims. You want to kill them. They don't want to die. If you kill them, you have just placed your desires above those of your victims. End of story. PKing is openly declaring that you think you are better and more important than your victims, and that 15 seconds worth of thrill for you is worth more than 8 hours of inconvenience for them. In my mind, that's an immoral stance to take.
Let's not bring Halo into this it's not a fair comparison and quite frankly you're wrong for doing so. I play Halo in Tournaments and I guarntee there is more skill and strategy involved than there is in Diablo 2. There is quite a bit of character involvement. From things as simple as what the character (Master Chief) can do. It's about knowing the limits of the character as you know the limits of your character in Diablo 2 to avoiding PKs or avoiding death in PvM. It is ingrained into my brain, how far I can throw a gernade, how many shots it takes with various weapons to kill someone, how far I can jump, what jumps I can make, the list goes on and on...
What realm do you play on? I'm on East and I'd love to play with you.
The point wasn't that Halo doesn't require as much skill as Diablo. The point was this:
Your character dies in Halo. 15 seconds later, you have another character that was exactly identical to the one who just died. You've lost 15 seconds of time.
Your lvl 95 character dies in Diablo. It'll take dozens of hours to have another character that's exactly identical- even longer if you didn't get a loot. You've just lost dozens of hours of time.
12 hours is 2880 times as long as 15 seconds, so it's therefore roughly 2,880 times worse/more annoying when you lose your clvl 95 toon than when you lose your guy in Halo.
Not having played Halo, that's really as much as I can comment on the comparison.
The point wasn't that Halo doesn't require as much skill as Diablo. The point was this:
Your character dies in Halo. 15 seconds later, you have another character that was exactly identical to the one who just died. You've lost 15 seconds of time.
Your lvl 95 character dies in Diablo. It'll take dozens of hours to have another character that's exactly identical- even longer if you didn't get a loot. You've just lost dozens of hours of time.
12 hours is 2880 times as long as 15 seconds, so it's therefore roughly 2,880 times worse/more annoying when you lose your clvl 95 toon than when you lose your guy in Halo.
Not having played Halo, that's really as much as I can comment on the comparison.
Actually, it's 5 seconds. But I wasn't talking about the character itself, I was talking about time put in for development of skills. In Halo, you become a better player. In Diablo, you become a higher level character. Also, I was talking about how it's an unfair comparison for a FPS to an RPG. Compare Softcore and Hardcore versions of the same game, that'll put you on equal footing.
MoUsE_WiZ
31-07-2006, 23:59
Again, I just feel like your analogies are fundamentally flawed. The two biggest flaws in every arguement you've made so far is intent and consent. Boxing is a CONSENTUAL sport.
And you are consenting to the possibility of having your character killed in D2, that was sort of my point. Not surprised if it was missed though, my fault.
That's not the case in Diablo, so the analogy is flawed.
I disagree. The consent to PvP in Diablo 2 does not come when you are hostiled, it comes when you decide that the Diablo 2 is the game you decide to play. You're right, the difference between boxing and D2 is that in boxing you're not likely to have your head smashed into a wall while hitting a bag. My point does not lie there, it's that in boxing you choose to get into the ring, so far as I'm concerned in D2 you are getting into the ring the moment you join a game as that is what the rules of the game dictate.
As for the Hockey analogy... again, it's one of intent. ... No such consequences exist in Diablo.
The hockey analogy was meant to go back and address the consent issue, I didn't offer an analogy on the intent issue. I did, however, address it. For myself at least the intent of PKing in D2 is not to cause you grief it's the rush I get knowing that *I* might lose *my* character. You consent to allowing me to have that rush when D2 is the game you choose to play, it is not my intent to waste your time, it is my intent to have fun at the expense of your time.
I couldn't think of anything that might match that last night, but one's come to mind; gambling. Doesn't matter the game, whichever game I'm playing it is my intent to have fun while at the same time costing somebody else money. Not because I'm costing them money, but because knowing I might lose a good chunk of my money and then winning a pile more is fun to me. Go ahead and bring up the consent issue with this again, but I'll just refer you back to my stance that you consent to it the moment you join a game.
In fact, there's not a sport out there where you are allowed to intentionally injure another person without their consent
Agreed, I had sports on my mind last night. The reason that sport doesn't exist is because wasted time is not on the same level as serious injury. Wasted time IS on the other hand almost the same thing as wasted money, but you can go ahead and tell me gambling is immoral if that's the stance you want to take, you wouldn't be the first =)
PKing is openly declaring that you think you are better and more important than your victims, and that 15 seconds worth of thrill for you is worth more than 8 hours of inconvenience for them. In my mind, that's an immoral stance to take.
You look at it that way, I'll continue looking at it as though if they didn't want to provide me the 15 second thrill they'd play one of the many other games that are identical to D2 minus the hostile system.
And you are consenting to the possibility of having your character killed in D2, that was sort of my point. Not surprised if it was missed though, my fault.
I have never consented to you killing my character. Not once. Saying that by playing the game I'm giving you my consent to kill me, just because I know that it's a possible outcome of playing the game, is like saying that by walking across the street I'm giving everyone my consent to run me over, since I know that that's a possible outcome of crossing the street.
I disagree. The consent to PvP in Diablo 2 does not come when you are hostiled, it comes when you decide that the Diablo 2 is the game you decide to play. You're right, the difference between boxing and D2 is that in boxing you're not likely to have your head smashed into a wall while hitting a bag. My point does not lie there, it's that in boxing you choose to get into the ring, so far as I'm concerned in D2 you are getting into the ring the moment you join a game as that is what the rules of the game dictate.
I'm afraid you have it wrong. I "enter the ring" the second I engage in consentual PvP activities. If I engage you in a duel and you kill me, then I have absolutely no right to complain. As you said, I entered the ring. However, playing a game where getting killed is a possibility is no more giving my consent for you to kill my character than walking down a street where getting robbed is a possibility is giving my consent for you to rob me. Does parking my car in a shady part of town qualify as giving my consent for someone to break into it and steal my CD player, too?
The hockey analogy was meant to go back and address the consent issue, I didn't offer an analogy on the intent issue.
Which is why your analogies are all flawed. They all deal with either one aspect (intent) or the other (consent), but never both at the same time. As a result, they are not a valid comparison at all. Lots of endeavors will result in you getting hurt with your consent. Lots of endeavors will result in you getting hurt without anyone's intent. Name me one endeavor that results in you getting hurt *WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT*, and *WITH SOMEONE'S INTENT*, and you have a valid analogy.
I did, however, address it. For myself at least the intent of PKing in D2 is not to cause you grief it's the rush I get knowing that *I* might lose *my* character. You consent to allowing me to have that rush when D2 is the game you choose to play, it is not my intent to waste your time, it is my intent to have fun at the expense of your time.
This is exactly it. You PK because *you* enjoy it. It is *your* desire to PK, to get that rush. *MY* desire is to not get PKed. The second you PK me, you are putting your desires primary to my own. You are saying YOUR desire to get that rush is more important than MY desire to not get PKed. You're saying that your 15 seconds of thrill are worth more than my 8 hours of work. I'm not saying that PKing is immoral because people only do it to piss other people off. I'm saying that PKing is immoral because people do it with callous disregard for how the other person felt.
If you PKed just to make me mad, then you really aren't disregarding how I feel- you're paying very close attention to how I feel, and trying to make me upset. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you just don't care at all how I feel. And that's true. You just don't care about how the people you just PKed feel. All that's important to you is that rush- and you're willing to do anything to get that rush, regardless of what it costs anyone else.
I couldn't think of anything that might match that last night, but one's come to mind; gambling. Doesn't matter the game, whichever game I'm playing it is my intent to have fun while at the same time costing somebody else money. Not because I'm costing them money, but because knowing I might lose a good chunk of my money and then winning a pile more is fun to me. Go ahead and bring up the consent issue with this again, but I'll just refer you back to my stance that you consent to it the moment you join a game.
Gambling is a very good analogy... for consentual PvP. Not for PKing.
Again, you're offering lots of examples that match the "intent" criteria without matching the "consent" criteria. You say that I consent to getting PKed the second I join the game. I respond by saying that that's ludicrous- much like suggesting that you've consented to get robbed the second you park your car in a shady part of town. That's the issue that you have to address here.
Look, if I'm offering my consent to get killed just by playing the game, why does the term "consentual PvP" even exist? I mean, by your definition, isn't all PvP consentual? Wouldn't "Consentual PvP" just be redundant?
Agreed, I had sports on my mind last night. The reason that sport doesn't exist is because wasted time is not on the same level as serious injury. Wasted time IS on the other hand almost the same thing as wasted money, but you can go ahead and tell me gambling is immoral if that's the stance you want to take, you wouldn't be the first =)
Gambling isn't immoral. When I gamble, I choose to put my money at risk against your money. When I PvP, I choose to put my character at risk against your character. When I get PKed, I choose nothing- I have my character destroyed without my desire.
Let's expand upon your gambling analogy. You say that playing Diablo is consenting to PKing, because Diablo is a place where PKing can possibly take place. Well then, walking into a Casino is consenting to being forced to gamble against your will, because Casinos are places where gambling can possibly take place. Can I just walk up to a random person in a Casino and say "You- I am forcing you to gamble $1000 dollars against me on one hand of poker, because you are in a place where Gambling is condoned"? No? Then why can you walk up to someone in Diablo and say "You- I am forcing you to gamble your character against mine, because you are in a place where PvP is condoned."?
Let's take that even further. You get to optimize your character for PvP long before you ever decide to PK. That'd be like being dealt a hand in poker, looking at it, deciding if you liked it, and then, if it was good, going up to a complete stranger and *FORCING* them to sit down and bet $1000 against you. Sure, you stand a chance of losing- but the odds are heavily stacked in your favor.
Just because I am in a Casino, I do not have to gamble against my will. Just because I play Diablo, I should not have to get PKed against my will. If I sit down at the table and put my money in the pot, that's one thing. But if I'm sitting at the bar watching sports on the TVs, that's another thing entirely.
You look at it that way, I'll continue looking at it as though if they didn't want to provide me the 15 second thrill they'd play one of the many other games that are identical to D2 minus the hostile system.
What games are identical to D2? Name me one.
Someone's desires are always going to be put above another, no matter what you do. If i'm not able to attempt to PK you, doesn't that put your desires over mine? It's human nature for one person to put their desires over another, it's not being greedy or immoral, it's just just how we as people are programmed. The servers are fundamentally flawed in their design, and there's nothing we can do about it. I also don't believe real world examples should be brought into this, because Diablo-II cannot be compared to the real world, it's completely different, it's a game.
MoUsE_WiZ
01-08-2006, 03:03
Let's expand upon your gambling analogy. You say that playing Diablo is consenting to PKing, because Diablo is a place where PKing can possibly take place. Well then, walking into a Casino is consenting to being forced to gamble against your will, because Casinos are places where gambling can possibly take place.
Not quite, whereas a casino is a place where gambling can take place, D2 is a game in which PKing does take place. I'm not comparing D2 to the casino and PKing to the gambling, it is D2 to the gambling. There is not a casino in which you are forced to sit down and gamble, there is however a game where you are forced to submit to PvP when OTHER people want regardless of if you want to or not, that game is Diablo 2. If such a casino existed then I would compare D2 to that casino and other games in which PvP exists only through duels to the casinos that do actually exist, while comparing PvP in those games to the games played in the respective casinos. It would be your choice which casino to enter, if you chose the one in which gambling can be forced on you you would be accepting the fate that you might lose hundreds of dollars when you didn't feel like risking it. Diablo 2 has always had the hostile button, and always will, the possibility of being forced to gamble or run on the whim of others is the game you are choosing to play.
If you'd like something a little more realistic than the casino you've come up with - if you sit down at a high limits black jack table (at least in casinos near me) you do not have the option to sit out more than 3 hands. You can choose to sit down at this table to have a beer and watch the game, sit out a hand, sit out a hand, sit out one last hand, then be forced to either find a new table or gamble when all you wanted to do was watch the game and drink your beer. The difference between Diablo 2 and this table is simply that in D2 you never know when you will be forced into that descision, but by playing D2 or sitting at that table you are acknowledging that that descision will have to be made.
I have never consented to you killing my character. Not once.
No, but you have consented to the fact that I might try to do so.
I'm afraid you have it wrong. I "enter the ring" the second I engage in consentual PvP activities. If I engage you in a duel and you kill me, then I have absolutely no right to complain. As you said, I entered the ring. However, playing a game where getting killed is a possibility is no more giving my consent for you to kill my character than walking down a street where getting robbed is a possibility is giving my consent for you to rob me. Does parking my car in a shady part of town qualify as giving my consent for someone to break into it and steal my CD player, too?
There's a difference between something being a possibility and something being a part of the game. It is a possibility that I might TPPK you in a public baal run, and I would agree that this is quite lame. However it is a part of the game that I might hostile you in that same public baal run. I'd say your theft in a shady part of town is more akin to TPPK than PK.
This is exactly it. You PK because *you* enjoy it. It is *your* desire to PK, to get that rush. *MY* desire is to not get PKed. The second you PK me, you are putting your desires primary to my own.
I play games to have fun. I picked a game in which I can have fun. If you do not consider the possibility of running into a PK fun in a game which is designed to allow PKs to have fun it is your fault. By playing D2 I am asking for a game in which I can hunt characters down and kill them for whatever reason I like, by playing D2 you are choosing to play in the same world. This is fundamentally different from what a lawless anarchy would be like on earth because it is a choice to play D2, it is not a choice to live on earth.
decided to get off my high horse because I really like how ssog and mousey compose their arguments and would like to throw my 2 cents in more :)
I have never consented to you killing my character. Not once. Saying that by playing the game I'm giving you my consent to kill me, just because I know that it's a possible outcome of playing the game, is like saying that by walking across the street I'm giving everyone my consent to run me over, since I know that that's a possible outcome of crossing the street.
in defense of mousey, the analogy of walking across the street is as valid as any of mousey's as you have left out a very significant issue of what is legal and what is being considered immoral. Unless you address all issues regarding the comparison of diablo pking and a real life scenerio all analogies are "flawed."
As you can see that last statement is kind of ridiculous so suggesting that because mousey's analogies don't address all of your points they are flawed just doesn't fit.
As Dahkar just said and something I was thinking about earlier; any real life comparisons aren't going to fit exactly with diablo because it is an artificially created world where new rules and therefore new morales need to be created. Not interjected from our world where the rules are different.
I'm afraid you have it wrong. I "enter the ring" the second I engage in consentual PvP activities. If I engage you in a duel and you kill me, then I have absolutely no right to complain. As you said, I entered the ring.
unfortunately you have created a false pretense. You have created an arena where pvp becomes consentual and this arena simply doesn't exist. The concept of "dueling" in diablo is as relevant as the term "pwnt." A duel is simply a term created by two pvp people who establish their rules ahead of time. There is no in game "duel" function where two players can enter a "duel." The "duel games" where people join to participate in consentual pvp are not an actual part of diablo. They exist as much as baal runs exist. A reasonable comparison to saying "if you want to duel go join a duel game" is saying "you're lvl 35 so if you want to lvl get out of my act 2 game and join a baal run."
However, playing a game where getting killed is a possibility is no more giving my consent for you to kill my character than walking down a street where getting robbed is a possibility is giving my consent for you to rob me. Does parking my car in a shady part of town qualify as giving my consent for someone to break into it and steal my CD player, too?
once again, defending mousey's suggestion that playing a game where consentual pvp doesn't exist is therefore giving your consent; your analogies about getting robbed gives consent to your robber is not the same as the robber is breaking the rules. A pk is not.
Which is why your analogies are all flawed. They all deal with either one aspect (intent) or the other (consent), but never both at the same time. As a result, they are not a valid comparison at all. Lots of endeavors will result in you getting hurt with your consent. Lots of endeavors will result in you getting hurt without anyone's intent. Name me one endeavor that results in you getting hurt *WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT*, and *WITH SOMEONE'S INTENT*, and you have a valid analogy.
already addressed earler.
This is exactly it. You PK because *you* enjoy it. It is *your* desire to PK, to get that rush. *MY* desire is to not get PKed. The second you PK me, you are putting your desires primary to my own. You are saying YOUR desire to get that rush is more important than MY desire to not get PKed. You're saying that your 15 seconds of thrill are worth more than my 8 hours of work. I'm not saying that PKing is immoral because people only do it to piss other people off. I'm saying that PKing is immoral because people do it with callous disregard for how the other person felt.
As Dahkar said, if you want to survive and I want to kill you, by standing in town you are putting your desires over mine and if that is immoral, hiding from a pk is therefore an immoral act (obviously i don't believe this).
Look, if I'm offering my consent to get killed just by playing the game, why does the term "consentual PvP" even exist? I mean, by your definition, isn't all PvP consentual? Wouldn't "Consentual PvP" just be redundant?
Very true. Consentual PVP is redundant and doesn't exist. I only participate on these forums and have played hardcore diablo for approx 4 years, and I have never heard "Consentual PVP" before. I have used it because it obviously makes sense but I would not refer to any part of diablo as consentual pvp.
Gambling isn't immoral. When I gamble, I choose to put my money at risk against your money. When I PvP, I choose to put my character at risk against your character. When I get PKed, I choose nothing- I have my character destroyed without my desire.
Your options are limited but to say you choose nothing is ignoring a bunch of facts which I don't need to point out because they are quite obvious. As a poker player I could create an anology for this easily. Two people are in a hand against each other first hand in a tournament. You've consented to play the game and put up the $100 buy in fee. You have a good hand and a player puts you all-in. Your options have now been limited. you have to choose between calling and risk being knocked out of the game (staying and fighting the pk) or choose to fold your hand and lose the pot (staying in town or changing games). Very similar and I believe I have addressed your consent/intent analogy problem as well. The player pushing you all-in is trying to knock you out of the game. Something you obviously don't want to happen and do not intend to happen yourself. Is your opponent putting his desires above yours? absolutely he is. Will it cost you time/money? Absolutely it will. Was it a risk you were aware of before joining the game? Yes. Is he immoral? no.
I dunno, sometimes those people who go all in with like 7-2 and catch trips seem like there immoral. :)
BTW: That was more like 12-15 cents.
:laugh:
My apologies bigd72...I was going to clarify but SSoG hit it on the nose. I dont believe that Halo players lack skill...quite the contrary I thought I was good at it until I played online and my view of Halo expertise was revised:laughing:
My comparison was indeed about the nature of the charectar build...while boht involve skill of different sorts there is more invested in the char that is permanently lost in D2 than in halo where you have to wait 5 seconds to respawn (longer if your like me and kill yourself as much as kill others lol). Your skill is not lost in the death of your MC in halo...since the char respawns you start fresh from your last point with all your skill ready to go (in other words, the skill in play is the core of the game..whereas D2 has another variable to take into account ...permanent loss of invested time)
alas, I am on west, though I might be able to fix this come new season...gonna have to start again i may try east instead ( more trading there it seems at least)
Back to the origional topic, It seems that he argument boils down to an issue of game design vs. consentual choice ( i know im generalizing the topic, but my fingers are getting sore) . I wonder if we could start a poll (no clue how here) to see how many people would prefer the game mechanics changed to allow for consensual pvp (just an example of the many ways to change this game dynamic that seems to cause a great deal of people frustration). It seems that blizz has made many changes due to customer feedback and input(the many patches over the years attest to that) so if we can change charectar skills and thus change much of how the game is played, why not change the dynamics of pvp as well?
I dont believe that just because it is a current option within the game that it is a required and critical aspect of its function. based on that criteria, it would be the simple idea of how many would prefer X over Y. Perhaps it is time for D2 to change...some of you may not like the idea but I didnt like it when they put a timer on immoliation arrow :badteeth:
Malachi
Cleglaw_Himself
01-08-2006, 14:52
Or better yet- just make hostiling a mutal agreement.
SSoG - they have, but in a game called World of Warcraft. They won't change the code of D2 now.
To all those against pk'ing and saying it should be changed, its not fair, blah blah blah, I draw your attention to some quotes from Blizzard:
What kind of rewards do I get for playing Hardcore? Your name appears in red on battle.net ...
Everyone knows that your character has never died.
You get the excitement of knowing you only have one chance.
Hardcore mode isn't for everyone but recommended only for experts. If the thrills and fear of dying do not appeal to you, stick with normal mode.
and:
Hardcore characters are designed for game players who live to ride on the edge of danger.
If you choose to create and play a Hardcore character, you do so at your own risk.
and the clincher:
If you want to avoid being killed by other players, serve games with passwords and only play with people you trust. Unlike player killing in normal mode, people that are player killed in Hardcore mode do not come back. This makes Hardcore players a prime target for Player Killers. Be aware of players joining your game. If someone makes a move toward you, leave the game or finish them off.
Okay?! :scratch:
:laugh:
My apologies bigd72...I was going to clarify but SSoG hit it on the nose. I dont believe that Halo players lack skill...quite the contrary I thought I was good at it until I played online and my view of Halo expertise was revised:laughing:
My comparison was indeed about the nature of the charectar build...while boht involve skill of different sorts there is more invested in the char that is permanently lost in D2 than in halo where you have to wait 5 seconds to respawn (longer if your like me and kill yourself as much as kill others lol). Your skill is not lost in the death of your MC in halo...since the char respawns you start fresh from your last point with all your skill ready to go (in other words, the skill in play is the core of the game..whereas D2 has another variable to take into account ...permanent loss of invested time)
alas, I am on west, though I might be able to fix this come new season...gonna have to start again i may try east instead ( more trading there it seems at least)
YOU'RE not losing your personal skill when you are pk'd though, you're gaining EVEN MORE skill because you have a better idea of how to continue to live. Your skill of Diablo is not lost in the death of any given character. Since you can always make a new character. Now admittedly you don't have the same *skills* on the character. But, the game is designed that way. You don't have to have Frozen Orb to get through the Blood Moor. It's never a permanent loss of invested time, you chose by playing hardcore for the possibilty of death by any means avaliable by the game (well, you didn't chose TPPK initially, but when you know it exists and continue you to play you have to consider that a possibility.) Everytime you die, you learn something. You die to dolls, don't stand by them when they explode. You die to conviciton Multishot Gloams you learn to immediately hit alt F4, if you're ever see conviction in an area where elemental ranged attackers are. So you die to PK, you learn probably shouldn't get in there way.
Don't wait, come to East now!
I'm not ignoring this thread guys, I do plan on posting a response as soon as I have the time to go about it (since it's been taking a good 30+ minutes a pop so far). Despair not, PKs, I will prove you wrong still!:wink3:
PhatTrumpet
02-08-2006, 06:04
This should definitely be stickied as "The NEW Moratorium on the PK Debate."
Keep it comin', guys. :cool:
Diablo 2 has always had the hostile button, and always will, the possibility of being forced to gamble or run on the whim of others is the game you are choosing to play.
I agree. The possibility of being forced to gamble or run is a risk of the choice that you have made. In much the same way, the possibility of getting robbed is a risk of the choice you make if you park in a bad part of town. That doesn't make robbery right.
No, but you have consented to the fact that I might try to do so.
I think you're a little bit shaky on the definition of consent. Consent means actually AGREEING. I have never once *AGREED* for you to PK me. I acknowledge that it's a possibility in much the same way that I acknowledge that getting robbed is a possibility. Accepting that risk is not the same thing as consenting to have it done.
There's a difference between something being a possibility and something being a part of the game. It is a possibility that I might TPPK you in a public baal run, and I would agree that this is quite lame. However it is a part of the game that I might hostile you in that same public baal run. I'd say your theft in a shady part of town is more akin to TPPK than PK.
From where I stand, there is no difference between TPPK and PK. Both are a means of killing your character against your will. It just so happens that TPPK is a more effective method.
I play games to have fun. I picked a game in which I can have fun. If you do not consider the possibility of running into a PK fun in a game which is designed to allow PKs to have fun it is your fault. By playing D2 I am asking for a game in which I can hunt characters down and kill them for whatever reason I like, by playing D2 you are choosing to play in the same world. This is fundamentally different from what a lawless anarchy would be like on earth because it is a choice to play D2, it is not a choice to live on earth.
Again, just because PKing is allowed in D2 does not make it right. TPPKing is currently allowed in D2, and we *BOTH* agree that that's not right. I mean, according to your arguement... it's allowed in D2, so there's nothing wrong with it. What if some people picked a game in which they can have fun, and by have fun that means utterly destroy other people's characters without any fear of reprisal? Don't they have just as much right to have fun TPPKing as you do to have fun PKing? Neither is disallowed. Neither is against the rules. So why is one right and one wrong?
decided to get off my high horse because I really like how ssog and mousey compose their arguments and would like to throw my 2 cents in more :)
Glad to have you back.:smiley:
in defense of mousey, the analogy of walking across the street is as valid as any of mousey's as you have left out a very significant issue of what is legal and what is being considered immoral. Unless you address all issues regarding the comparison of diablo pking and a real life scenerio all analogies are "flawed."
Legality is not an issue at all. We've already established that just because something is "legal" does not make it "moral", and just because something is "illegal" does not make it "immoral". For instance, Slavery was once legal, and we all agree that slavery is immoral. If you're 17 and you have a beer, then that's ILLEGAL, but I don't think anyone would consider that inherantly immoral. I mean, in Europe, it's pretty standard practice. As a result, what's "allowed" and "in the rules" and "legal" really has no bearing on this discussion. We're just talking about what is right and what is wrong.
Personally, I believe the robbery is a great example. It combines both elements- INTENT TO HARM, combined with LACK OF CONSENT. It's the first example that I've heard from either side that had both of those key points.
As Dahkar just said and something I was thinking about earlier; any real life comparisons aren't going to fit exactly with diablo because it is an artificially created world where new rules and therefore new morales need to be created. Not interjected from our world where the rules are different.
Morals are absolute, unless you're a moral relativist... and I've never held much stock with moral relativists. If doing something would be immoral in real life, then it would be immoral in a game, as well.
once again, defending mousey's suggestion that playing a game where consentual pvp doesn't exist is therefore giving your consent; your analogies about getting robbed gives consent to your robber is not the same as the robber is breaking the rules. A pk is not.
Again, rules are irrelevant. The fact that something is against the rules, or is not against the rules, does not automatically make it right or wrong. Both situations involve an INTENT TO HARM combined with a LACK OF CONSENT. In fact, the fact that robbery is "against the rules" in real life is one of the reasons why I think it should be "against the rules" in the game- since the two actions are so very similar.
As Dahkar said, if you want to survive and I want to kill you, by standing in town you are putting your desires over mine and if that is immoral, hiding from a pk is therefore an immoral act (obviously i don't believe this).
Well, obviously there's a lot more to it than that, and I apologize for watering my arguement down to a simple "desire vs. desire". In the end, my characters are my property. Blizzard can put up all this legalese about how they own everything in the Diablo universe, but that's obviously not true. I talk about *MY* characters, and you talk about *YOUR* characters. We both obviously feel a sense of ownership for our toons, and our gear. Whether that would hold up in the courts or not is irrelevant, since we've already established that LAW does not establish RIGHT. As far as I'm concerned, MY character is just that- *MY* character. Your character is just that- *YOUR* character. I have a moral right to do what I want with my property, as long as it doesn't supersede any higher-order moral imperatives. I have no moral right to do what I want with YOUR property. I have no moral right to hack your password and steal your gear... and I have no moral right to kill your character on a whim.
Your options are limited but to say you choose nothing is ignoring a bunch of facts which I don't need to point out because they are quite obvious. As a poker player I could create an anology for this easily. Two people are in a hand against each other first hand in a tournament. You've consented to play the game and put up the $100 buy in fee. You have a good hand and a player puts you all-in. Your options have now been limited. you have to choose between calling and risk being knocked out of the game (staying and fighting the pk) or choose to fold your hand and lose the pot (staying in town or changing games). Very similar and I believe I have addressed your consent/intent analogy problem as well. The player pushing you all-in is trying to knock you out of the game. Something you obviously don't want to happen and do not intend to happen yourself. Is your opponent putting his desires above yours? absolutely he is. Will it cost you time/money? Absolutely it will. Was it a risk you were aware of before joining the game? Yes. Is he immoral? no.
Again, I'm struck by the fact that this exact same arguement could be made about TPPKing. When another player joins a game you're in, you have the choice to cash out or to risk it, knowing that he might TPPK you. Really, all of your arguements extend out to TPPKing, as well. And yet, somehow, we both agree that TPPKing is wrong. What is the fundamental difference between PKing and TPPKing that makes TPPKing wrong, but PKing right?
SSoG - they have, but in a game called World of Warcraft. They won't change the code of D2 now.
To all those against pk'ing and saying it should be changed, its not fair, blah blah blah, I draw your attention to some quotes from Blizzard:
All of those quotes apply to TPPKing every bit as much as they apply to PKing. So why is TPPKing wrong, but PKing is right? I mean, don't you accept the risk of TPPK when you play the game?
MoUsE_WiZ
02-08-2006, 07:28
All of those quotes apply to TPPKing every bit as much as they apply to PKing. So why is TPPKing wrong, but PKing is right? I mean, don't you accept the risk of TPPK when you play the game?
The use of scripts to preform any action is against the ToS and the EULA, clicking the hostile button on the other hand is something that was implemented in the game with the purpose of allowing people to PK in mind.
The TPPK is not playing by the rules they agreed to when they decided to log onto battle.net (unless he does not cheat to do it, I don't recall if "exploits" are against the above mentioned agreements or not), the PK is. This is the key difference. Wouldn't you agree that breaking an agreement is immoral, and that PKs are breaking no such agreement?
once *AGREED* for you to PK me
No, you haven't agreed to let me PK you. What you have agreed to is that I am completely within my rights to do so. Refer to the above reason as to how TPPK is a seperate issue from PK, then refer back to Cleg's quote.
The use of scripts to preform any action is against the ToS and the EULA, clicking the hostile button on the other hand is something that was implemented in the game with the purpose of allowing people to PK in mind.
The TPPK is not playing by the rules they agreed to when they decided to log onto battle.net (unless he does not cheat to do it, I don't recall if "exploits" are against the above mentioned agreements or not), the PK is. This is the key difference. Wouldn't you agree that breaking an agreement is immoral, and that PKs are breaking no such agreement?
We've already had that discussion. Just because it's part of the rules or not part of the rules doesn't make it right or wrong. I mean, we're trying to discuss whether there should be a rule against PKing, so saying that it's not wrong because there's no rule against it sort of misses the point. OF COURSE there's no rule against it- that's why I'm saying there needs to be one.
Basically, if you play the rules card, your arguement boils down to "PKing shouldn't be against the rules because it's not against the rules".
No, you haven't agreed to let me PK you. What you have agreed to is that I am completely within my rights to do so. Refer to the above reason as to how TPPK is a seperate issue from PK, then refer back to Cleg's quote.
I've never said you were withing your rights to PK me. I acknowledge that you're within your ABILITIES to PK me. The word "rights" implies entitlement, and I don't feel like you have the "right" to destroy "my" property. So no, I have not agreed that you have the right to PK me. That's what this arguement is all about- I'm arguing that PKs don't have a "right" to PK, any more than thieves have a "right" to steal just because it's within their abilities.
I'm arguing that PKs don't have a "right" to PK, any more than thieves have a "right" to steal just because it's within their abilities.
Compare Blizzard to a society.
In the case of a real life thief, the society has decided that it is aggainst the rules to steal from another person. By stealing you are breaking the rules.
Blizzard case and PK'ing. Blizzard, as dictator and ruler has decided that PK'ing is allowed, hence hostiling and PK'ing other people is allowed and the PK is not breaking any rule.
Your comparison with PK'ing and stealing is flawed since the laws that regulate them is different in the two cases.
TPPK: Blizzard as ruler has decided that it is aggainst the rules to use third party programs within Diablo, hence by using third party programs you are breaking the rules. Your comparison of PK'ing "legit" with TPPK is therefore also flawed.
/Magnus
Hahaha! Please, by all means, do continue this discussion, but remember the following.
Any right to do or not do in Diablo II is given by Blizzard. Forced hostality is an option in the game, it has been since Diablo I, and it is still present in Diablo II. If you play Quake IV Multiplayer Deathmatch, you know you are going to get shot. But because this is not an FPS, suddenly people are not able to see anymore Diablo II is a game, and thus try to apply real life rules, arguments and ethics to it. Stupid, pointless and non-applicable. Diablo II is a game, and one of the premises of that game is that non-consentual hostility exists. That you feel it is not right means you should look for a different game, where PvP exists in a different matter. It does not make PK-ing evil. It does not make PK's evil. PK's are part of this game, and that is the way Blizzard wanted it. You can go and look up Sirian's PK arguments on the net if you want... Blizzard stated that Diablo II worked the way they designed it, and that (apart from the hacks, of coursE) were happy with the way they designed it. Diablo II has been setup to deliver the experience of player versus monster, and of player versus player, in a threathening way.
Death by Bear is what we offer :innocent:. Rights? You have none... there is no police in Diablo, no sherrif, no jail, no rules apart from the rules of the game as set by Blizzard. There is nothing wrong with killing another persons character. If they are unable to distinguish between real life and a game and cannot seperate from their pixxels, it is their problem. Do not try and compare real life to a game. The comparison is flawed. Real life ethics do not apply.
Perceval
02-08-2006, 15:36
It's a freaking game ... Come on, have fun, that's all.
Tarantella
02-08-2006, 16:41
....
Death by Bear is what we offer :innocent:. Rights? You have none... there is no police in Diablo, no sherrif, no jail, no rules apart from the rules of the game as set by Blizzard. There is nothing wrong with killing another persons character. If they are unable to distinguish between real life and a game and cannot seperate from their pixxels, it is their problem. Do not try and compare real life to a game. The comparison is flawed. Real life ethics do not apply.
On the contrary.
Ethics are ethics whether in real life or gaming. People are still people whether interacting together in real life or online or in online gaming.
Tarantella
02-08-2006, 16:42
It's a freaking game ... Come on, have fun, that's all.
Quite right...but not at others expense.:cool:
I'm tired of people suggesting we need a No-PK option for games. That totally takes the fun out of it, especially as HC's. However, I think this would be a more reasonable idea.
If you TP and go to town, you cannot hostile for 5 seconds. Problem solved except with certain skills, but if you see it if you're there, you'd know to run. Hell even 10 seconds would prevent a lot of skill effects and make the game more enjoyable. But allowing NO-PK games is just childish and it eases the minds of a few whiners that can't handle death.
I'm tired of people suggesting we need a No-PK option for games. That totally takes the fun out of it, especially as HC's. However, I think this would be a more reasonable idea.
If you TP and go to town, you cannot hostile for 5 seconds. Problem solved except with certain skills, but if you see it if you're there, you'd know to run. Hell even 10 seconds would prevent a lot of skill effects and make the game more enjoyable. But allowing NO-PK games is just childish and it eases the minds of a few whiners that can't handle death.
You'll need this, flame retardant suit. (http://img.alibaba.com/photo/50345300/Permanent_Flame_Retardant_Flying_Suit.jpg)
Compare Blizzard to a society.
In the case of a real life thief, the society has decided that it is aggainst the rules to steal from another person. By stealing you are breaking the rules.
Blizzard case and PK'ing. Blizzard, as dictator and ruler has decided that PK'ing is allowed, hence hostiling and PK'ing other people is allowed and the PK is not breaking any rule.
Your comparison with PK'ing and stealing is flawed since the laws that regulate them is different in the two cases.
TPPK: Blizzard as ruler has decided that it is aggainst the rules to use third party programs within Diablo, hence by using third party programs you are breaking the rules. Your comparison of PK'ing "legit" with TPPK is therefore also flawed.
/Magnus
Have you ever read 1984? It is the duty of citizens to question the integrity of their rulers at all times. Just because it is rule does not mean it is right.
Also, as I understand it, TPPK is just a hack that makes it so that the second you TP to town, you automatically declare hostility with everyone in the game. Am I misunderstanding this? And if I'm not misunderstanding, then what would happen if there was someone who was so quick with a mouse that, without the aid of 3rd party programs, he could still TPPK? Would that suddenly be fine and dandy like sour candy? Is everyone here saying that they would be 100% supportive of TPPKs if they could somehow manage to do it without hacks?
Hahaha! Please, by all means, do continue this discussion, but remember the following.
Any right to do or not do in Diablo II is given by Blizzard. Forced hostality is an option in the game, it has been since Diablo I, and it is still present in Diablo II. If you play Quake IV Multiplayer Deathmatch, you know you are going to get shot. But because this is not an FPS, suddenly people are not able to see anymore Diablo II is a game, and thus try to apply real life rules, arguments and ethics to it. Stupid, pointless and non-applicable. Diablo II is a game, and one of the premises of that game is that non-consentual hostility exists. That you feel it is not right means you should look for a different game, where PvP exists in a different matter. It does not make PK-ing evil. It does not make PK's evil. PK's are part of this game, and that is the way Blizzard wanted it. You can go and look up Sirian's PK arguments on the net if you want... Blizzard stated that Diablo II worked the way they designed it, and that (apart from the hacks, of coursE) were happy with the way they designed it. Diablo II has been setup to deliver the experience of player versus monster, and of player versus player, in a threathening way.
I never said that PKs were evil. I just said that the action of PKing is immoral. It's cyber-vandalism. It's wanton and willful destruction for destruction's sake. Just because Diablo II was made by cyber-vandals doesn't make cyber-vandalism right.
Death by Bear is what we offer :innocent:. Rights? You have none... there is no police in Diablo, no sherrif, no jail, no rules apart from the rules of the game as set by Blizzard. There is nothing wrong with killing another persons character. If they are unable to distinguish between real life and a game and cannot seperate from their pixxels, it is their problem. Do not try and compare real life to a game. The comparison is flawed. Real life ethics do not apply.
This is the tragedy of the internet. This faceless anonymity causes people to forget that it's still real.
I am a real life person. You are, I presume, also a real life person. Therefore, any interactions between the two of us are interactions between two real-life people. The medium through which we interact is irrelevant- we could be talking face to face, over the telephone, tapping morse code through water pipes, or... you guessed it, playing Diablo II... and it'd still be the interactions between two real-life people. And in the interactions between real-life people, real-life ethics will always apply.
What if I walked around in Diablo II shouting every racist slur I could think of? What if I hacked onto everyone's characters and stole everyone's gear, then deleted all of the toons? Can we both agree that these actions would be hurtful and immoral? What if I then responded "Chill out, you overemotional &*%$*&#. It's only a game."? Would that arguement fly with you?
I'm tired of people suggesting we need a No-PK option for games. That totally takes the fun out of it, especially as HC's. However, I think this would be a more reasonable idea.
If a person thinks that being PKed is fun, they will not disable PKing. Enabling a PK option doesn't take the fun out of it for anyone except for those who think it's fun forcing their will on other people. Personally, I can live with that.
If you TP and go to town, you cannot hostile for 5 seconds. Problem solved except with certain skills, but if you see it if you're there, you'd know to run. Hell even 10 seconds would prevent a lot of skill effects and make the game more enjoyable. But allowing NO-PK games is just childish and it eases the minds of a few whiners that can't handle death.
Ah, so you admit that it's immoral to TPPK? But it's allowed by the rules! Surely, if it's allowed by the rules, it can't possibly be immoral, can it?
I'm sorry, I understand that sarcasm is usually a tool of last recourse, but I've made that point a couple of times now and I'm running out of new ways to make it. My apologies.
If someone is fast enough and accurate enough to tppk manually without the use of a 3rd party program all the power to them. Although it is cowardly because they take no risk themselves it is a difficult skill to accomplish that is within the game and I find no problem with it.
As you outlined tppk allows a person to tp to town and instantly hostile. What you have missed is it also allows you to automatically target an individual. Example: I am on an ice blast sorc, i use my 3rd party program to select a player who is playing. I then shoot a few ice blasts that will lock onto this individual via the third party program, then hostile instantly using the same.
To accomplish this manually is very difficult and can be done but to do it to the same extent as tppk is impossible.
MoUsE_WiZ
02-08-2006, 22:29
Basically, if you play the rules card, your arguement boils down to "PKing shouldn't be against the rules because it's not against the rules".
No, PKing is one of the rules. It's not that it's not against the rules, it IS one of the rules. You wouldn't put on a paintball mask, grab a paintball gun, walk out into the middle of a paintball course, pull out a picnic basket, then ask people to not shoot you, would you? One of the rules of Diablo 2 is that people get to run around PKing should they feel like it. It's not that there is a lack of consequences preventing me from doing so, it is that Diablo 2 is an arena in which I can do so.
I've never said you were withing your rights to PK me.
That's where our opinions differ. So far as I'm concerned Diablo 2 is a game designed to allow me to PK you, and Blizzard has said the same. As I said, THE GAME is the table, THE GAME is boxing ring, THE GAME is the paintball course, and the makers of THE GAME agree with me. The actual act of PKing is not something that might happen within the game, it IS the game. Sorry, but you have chosen the wrong game if you wanted a picnic.
property
Actually, it's Blizzard's property and they have said I can cause a bit to be flipped from 1 to 0 all I want.
I'm arguing that PKs don't have a "right" to PK, any more than thieves have a "right" to steal just because it's within their abilities.
It's not a question of picking a place where the ability exists as a thief might pick a neighborhood he knows he can get away with something, it's a question of picking a game that is based around the ability to do so.
Just because you play Diablo 2 for a reason other than PKing does not mean there are people who didn't purchase this game because they feel PKing is fun. Diablo 2 is a PvP game.
If someone is fast enough and accurate enough to tppk manually without the use of a 3rd party program all the power to them. Although it is cowardly because they take no risk themselves it is a difficult skill to accomplish that is within the game and I find no problem with it.
As you outlined tppk allows a person to tp to town and instantly hostile. What you have missed is it also allows you to automatically target an individual. Example: I am on an ice blast sorc, i use my 3rd party program to select a player who is playing. I then shoot a few ice blasts that will lock onto this individual via the third party program, then hostile instantly using the same.
To accomplish this manually is very difficult and can be done but to do it to the same extent as tppk is impossible.
I don't know, I've never had any problem aiming Bone Spirits, Guided Arrows, or Blizzards. :flip:
I really find it difficult to believe that you wouldn't have any problem at all with someone who TPPKed without a third-party program. That would indicate that *WHAT THE PROGRAM DOES* is irrelevant to you, and it's only the fact that this person uses a third party program that you have a problem with. Does this mean that you think people who use the Lag Reduction Module are just as bad as TPPKers? I mean, they both use third party programs and violate the EULA, and you've already established that it's not the ACT of TPPKing that bugs you, it's the fact that they use 3rd party programs to do it. Simple reasoning would then state that all 3rd party programs are equally immoral, and such malicious 3rd party programs as Farcast or TPPK are in reality no worse than the relatively benign LRM. Do you agree with this statement?
MoUsE_WiZ
02-08-2006, 22:34
That would indicate that *WHAT THE PROGRAM DOES* is irrelevant to you, and it's only the fact that this person uses a third party program that you have a problem with.
Actually, that sounds about right.
I've had exactly one character worth mentioning TPPKed and exactly one character worth mentioning PKed. In the case of the TPPK I was annoyed with the TPPK for cheating, in the case of the PK I was annoyed with myself for letting him get me (especially because if I'd been paying more attention I could've fluxed him easily ><).
Simple reasoning would then state that all 3rd party programs are equally immoral
This is why I said "about right". The impact that the cheater has on the game by cheating does come into play as the cheater is ruining my fun to different extents. If I get TPPKed I have a dead character all of a sudden that I shouldn't have had, if I get PKed I have a dead character all of a sudden that I should have. There's a rather significant difference between the two.
I do agree that ALL 3rd party programs are immoral, just not with the equally part as they all have varying impacts on the game play of others; in real life there are different punishments for different crimes, since you are so insistent on comparing PKing to crime, think of each possible hack as a different crime.
Now now are you sure you want to step into that pit? Ethics are still ethics, indeed. Let us consider what you just said.
Ethics have nothing to do with whether something is morally wrong or right. Ethics are a set of rules you live by... but my ethics are not your ethics. It is a common misconception that ethical means morally right. For example: When using the " landlord" aproach to the enviroment, you consider yourself to be the landlord of nature, and thus have the right to exploit it to your own wishes. Is this morally right? Today it is not. But since your ethical system revolves around being a landlord, it is ethically sound. This is just a minor example. I managed to get a degree in animal ethics... we could debate this a little if you want?
On the contrary.
Ethics are ethics whether in real life or gaming. People are still people whether interacting together in real life or online or in online gaming.
No, PKing is one of the rules. It's not that it's not against the rules, it IS one of the rules. You wouldn't put on a paintball mask, grab a paintball gun, walk out into the middle of a paintball course, pull out a picnic basket, then ask people to not shoot you, would you? One of the rules of Diablo 2 is that people get to run around PKing should they feel like it. It's not that there is a lack of consequences preventing me from doing so, it is that Diablo 2 is an arena in which I can do so.
I've already said my piece on the rules arguement. Rule does not make right. It simply doesn't.
If a government passes a new law, does that mean that whatever they outlawed used to be 100% right and the second it got outlawed it became 100% wrong? If the government signed a law that said playing poker online is illegal (which they're currently discussing), then would that make all online poker players 100% perfectly right and moral until the second that President Bush's pen finishes signing his name, at which point they're all 100% wrong and immoral?
Personally, I don't think things exist like that. Something is either right, or it's wrong, and any changes in the "rules" immediately flip a switch and make it the opposite.
Besides, saying that there's a rule that allows PKing doesn't mean much. Of course there's a rule allowing PKing. This is why I'm discussing whether there should be a new rule against it. If PKing was already against the rules, and you said that they should make a rule allowing PKing, and I repeatedly just responded by saying "No PKing is wrong look it's against the rules", wouldn't you eventually get frustrated?
Actually, it's Blizzard's property and they have said I can cause a bit to be flipped from 1 to 0 all I want.
It's funny that you say that. Count the number of times you've said "my character" or "my gear" during this conversation and tell me again that you don't feel a certain sense of ownership.
It's not a question of picking a place where the ability exists as a thief might pick a neighborhood he knows he can get away with something, it's a question of picking a game that is based around the ability to do so.
Just because you play Diablo 2 for a reason other than PKing does not mean there are people who didn't purchase this game because they feel PKing is fun. Diablo 2 is a PvP game.
I have nothing wrong with people finding PvP fun. They're more than welcome to PK to their heart's content, as long as they're going against people who don't mind getting PKed.
Again, I have nothing at all against PKing. I have something against disregarding how other people feel. Whether it's supported by the game, whether it's ENCOURAGED by the game, is irrelevant. It is wrong to impose your will on other people, to destroy what they perceive as theirs for your own amusement, and to completely disregard how others may feel about that matter. That's true whether you're on the telephone, the playground, the subway, or battlenet. That's true whether your parents are encouraging it, your friends are encouraging it, or Diablo's designers are encouraging it. That's true whether it's allowed, disallowed, or not specifically addressed. It's a moral absolute.
Actually, that sounds about right.
I've had exactly one character worth mentioning TPPKed and exactly one character worth mentioning PKed. In the case of the TPPK I was annoyed with the TPPK for cheating, in the case of the PK I was annoyed with myself for letting him get me (especially because if I'd been paying more attention I could've fluxed him easily ><).
So great, you don't mind being PKed, you can create games with the PK option enabled. It's not like my proposal will eliminate PKing entirely. It will just eliminate it for people who don't want it. Wouldn't you rather know that you're killing characters that people are prepared to lose rather than characters that people are "too attached to"? If you really do it for the thrill, wouldn't it be a greater thrill to know that the people you're about to PK are fully prepared and geared up for PK attempts? If you really aren't out to ruin somebody's game, then wouldn't it be nice to know that you can PK to your heart's content and nobody is going to get worked up over it?
Also, I have to ask one last time, because I'm still a little incredulous about it. Do you REALLY mean to suggest to me that you view TPPK as no more immoral or "wrong" than the Lag Reduction Module?
SSoG, you argue well and intelligently, but you won't change anything here. I agree with your point of view, but have long since given up trying to persuade anyone pro pk that they should show anything resembling civil consideration for others.
The fundamental question here is this : 'under what circumstances would you be prepared to change your mind ?'. If the answer is 'none', then as far as I'm concerned, the converation is over. btw, this also applies to other subjects, such as politics, religion, vi or emacs :-) etc etc etc.
The pro pkers here are NOT prepared to change their minds over this. All you will ultimately achieve is a certain amount of frustration, which will end up reducing the fun of the game more than the selfish, uncaring acts of those types we both so dislike.
The bottom line is, it is part of the game mechanics. Broken by design, if you will. There are many ways of dealing with this, the last one being to find another game like D2, but with mutual PvP elements.
Join the amazon basin, play kta games, get to know people who like to play the way you do, or even play solo. All of these activities will be more rewarding than banging your head against a brick wall. Believe me, I've been there, heard the radio broadcast, seen the movie, and bought the t-shirt. Know what I mean ?
Hth
DelBoy
MoUsE_WiZ
02-08-2006, 23:00
Besides, saying that there's a rule that allows PKing doesn't mean much. Of course there's a rule allowing PKing. This is why I'm discussing whether there should be a new rule against it. If PKing was already against the rules, and you said that they should make a rule allowing PKing, and I repeatedly just responded by saying "No PKing is wrong look it's against the rules", wouldn't you eventually get frustrated?
I'm saying you've picked the wrong game. There are plenty of games out there, this one contains the hostile button, pick a new one.
In WoW there are two types of realms, PvP and PvE, you wouldn't join a PvP realm and expect people to not be allowed to gank you to their hearts content would you? I am saying that by choosing to play Diablo 2 you have chosen to play on a PvP realm in WoW. If you'd chosen a different game - or even softcore where you could play as though death was permanent and just ignore PKs - you'd have chosen the PvE realm.
I have nothing wrong with people finding PvP fun. They're more than welcome to PK to their heart's content, as long as they're going against people who don't mind getting PKed.
Again, if people mind it they are in the wrong place. It is not my fault they're in the wrong place, it is not Blizzard's fault they are in the wrong place, Blizzard is quite clear the D2 is a place for PKs.
Whether it's supported by the game, whether it's ENCOURAGED by the game, is irrelevant. It is wrong to impose your will on other people
It is encouraged by the game, and you are attempting to impose your will on the people who picked the right game for them. Again - the fundamental difference between a game and reality is that you don't get to choose earth to live on, you do get to pick Diablo 2 as the game you want to play. Why try to alter the game to suit your desires rather than trying to find a game that already exists that is not a PvP based game?
Also, I have to ask one last time, because I'm still a little incredulous about it. Do you REALLY mean to suggest to me that you view TPPK as no more immoral or "wrong" than the Lag Reduction Module?
Refer to the edit.
SSoG, you argue well and intelligently, but you won't change anything here. I agree with your point of view, but have long since given up trying to persuade anyone pro pk that they should show anything resembling civil consideration for others.
The fundamental question here is this : 'under what circumstances would you be prepared to change your mind ?'. If the answer is 'none', then as far as I'm concerned, the converation is over. btw, this also applies to other subjects, such as politics, religion, vi or emacs :-) etc etc etc.
The pro pkers here are NOT prepared to change their minds over this. All you will ultimately achieve is a certain amount of frustration, which will end up reducing the fun of the game more than the selfish, uncaring acts of those types we both so dislike.
The bottom line is, it is part of the game mechanics. Broken by design, if you will. There are many ways of dealing with this, the last one being to find another game like D2, but with mutual PvP elements.
Join the amazon basin, play kta games, get to know people who like to play the way you do, or even play solo. All of these activities will be more rewarding than banging your head against a brick wall. Believe me, I've been there, heard the radio broadcast, seen the movie, and bought the t-shirt. Know what I mean ?
Hth
DelBoy
Well put.
SSoG, I have a simple question. Does your disdain lie with Pker's or with the act of Pking?
MoUsE_WiZ
02-08-2006, 23:08
Well put.
SSoG, I have a simple question. Does your disdain lie with Pker's or with the act of Pking?
He's said it's the fact that PKers put their own amusement over what other people want.
I feel that "what other people want" is dictated by the fact that D2 is the game that they have chosen to play.
I never said that PKs were evil. I just said that the action of PKing is immoral. It's cyber-vandalism. It's wanton and willful destruction for destruction's sake. Just because Diablo II was made by cyber-vandals doesn't make cyber-vandalism right.
I am rather surprised you call Blizzard North a bunch of Cyber vandals. ;)
See my next point however.
This is the tragedy of the internet. This faceless anonymity causes people to forget that it's still real.
I am a real life person. You are, I presume, also a real life person. Therefore, any interactions between the two of us are interactions between two real-life people. The medium through which we interact is irrelevant- we could be talking face to face, over the telephone, tapping morse code through water pipes, or... you guessed it, playing Diablo II... and it'd still be the interactions between two real-life people. And in the interactions between real-life people, real-life ethics will always apply.
What if I walked around in Diablo II shouting every racist slur I could think of? What if I hacked onto everyone's characters and stole everyone's gear, then deleted all of the toons? Can we both agree that these actions would be hurtful and immoral? What if I then responded "Chill out, you overemotional &*%$*&#. It's only a game."? Would that arguement fly with you?
Ah. Now, let us see. Assume that I am mature enough to realize that this is indeed just a game. Well, let us forget that we assume... I have made that distinction quite a while ago. Diablo II is a game. If someone chooses to cheat at this game, he is diminishing his own experience, much like cheating and winning at chess, or whatever else a game is. It is against the rules of the game. Is it immoral? Depends on the game. At Chess, it is. When playing the card game Munchkin, it is only immoral if someone catches you cheating... otherwise its just another brilliant strategical move to get to level 10 first. If someone hacked into my account and deleted my characters, I would be disappointed. I might even stop playing. After all, someone just cheated me out of the game. Blizzard set the rules, and one of the rules was " no 3rd party programs". If one does not wish to adhere to that, one does not need to play with me.
However, if someone legitly pk-ed me, I would not be disappointed or hurt. Might feel a bit of loss due to loosing a character, (you're an AB-er? toon?) but the rules of the game state that it is possible to PK. There is nothing ethically wrong with that if someone follows those rules (please understand that ethics are something different from morale ok? If you fancy an explanation, I might give you one... but see a post I made above.)
Mmm, wrote some more stuff here, but I saw you added a reply to some other people, so we'll leave it at the following for a while:
There should be no rule against player killing. People should learn that this is a game, and that pk's are part of that game. If pk-ing was taken out by blizzard, I would not complain, nor yearn for the days to return. And yes, I am a mass murderer by anyone's standards when it comes to pk-ing. Currently the game is set out with hostiliy as added challenge, and there is nothing wrong with that. Chess is also set out to trash your opponent. Can't complain someone takes your pieces, whilst you might mentally damage him if you completely whipe him off the board. People who can't take their loss (and that is what this is about, taking your loss) should not play games.
Tarantella
03-08-2006, 00:39
Its not so easy to separate pvm from pvp in D2 as to develop your character you have to do much of the former before the latter. Levelling faster if you party with others.
So in this respect people doing this to develop characters with the later intention to pk others are being duplicitous.
There are no rules regarding pk any more than there are rules regarding pvm.There are game mechanics. But the upshot of the pk activity of a few players in many respects spoils the game for the vast bulk of other players resulting in I suspect of over 90% of online D2 games being private and passworded. Which is wrong dont you agree?
This thread moves to fast for me to respond :) I come back and it has 3 more pages. :) Most action I've seen on forums in ages.
SSoG, you argue well and intelligently, but you won't change anything here. I agree with your point of view, but have long since given up trying to persuade anyone pro pk that they should show anything resembling civil consideration for others.
The fundamental question here is this : 'under what circumstances would you be prepared to change your mind ?'. If the answer is 'none', then as far as I'm concerned, the converation is over. btw, this also applies to other subjects, such as politics, religion, vi or emacs :-) etc etc etc.
The pro pkers here are NOT prepared to change their minds over this. All you will ultimately achieve is a certain amount of frustration, which will end up reducing the fun of the game more than the selfish, uncaring acts of those types we both so dislike.
The bottom line is, it is part of the game mechanics. Broken by design, if you will. There are many ways of dealing with this, the last one being to find another game like D2, but with mutual PvP elements.
Join the amazon basin, play kta games, get to know people who like to play the way you do, or even play solo. All of these activities will be more rewarding than banging your head against a brick wall. Believe me, I've been there, heard the radio broadcast, seen the movie, and bought the t-shirt. Know what I mean ?
Hth
DelBoy
Like I said earlier, this is all academic to me, since I already play in a 100% PK-free environment. I also understand that I'm probably not going to change the minds of anyone who is arguing me- because if they feel strongly enough to argue, there's not much I can do. I feel the same way when arguing against trading for dupes. The thing is, I'm not trying to change the mind of who I am arguing with... I'm trying to change the mind of whoever else might be reading this thread, and who isn't sure enough in his convictions to argue them.
It is encouraged by the game, and you are attempting to impose your will on the people who picked the right game for them. Again - the fundamental difference between a game and reality is that you don't get to choose earth to live on, you do get to pick Diablo 2 as the game you want to play. Why try to alter the game to suit your desires rather than trying to find a game that already exists that is not a PvP based game?
I'm not trying to impose my will upon anyone, anymore than a homeowner who locks his door is "imposing his will" upon the people who would break into his house.
You may not be able to choose what earth you live on, but you can choose what country you live in. Does this mean we shouldn't try to solve injustices in other countries? If a leader starts slaughtering his own people, should we just say "Well, you should have picked somewhere else to live"? Lots of people wouldn't move even if they could, because they feel ties to their country, whether nationalistic, patriotic, or familial. The fact that they chose to live there does not deprive them of their basic human rights, though. As I said, any interaction between two real life human beings, through whatever medium, should still be bound by the same basic code of morals and ethics.
SSoG, I have a simple question. Does your disdain lie with Pker's or with the act of Pking?
Disdain is the wrong word. I don't disdain anyone here. I'm sure all of the PKers are very nice people who just so happen to believe differently than I do. In my eyes, in my mind, there is no doubt that PKing is immoral. Are PKs then bad people? Of course not. I do lots of things that are immoral. I firmly believe that PKs are good people, even if PKing itself is immoral and wrong.
He's said it's the fact that PKers put their own amusement over what other people want.
I feel that "what other people want" is dictated by the fact that D2 is the game that they have chosen to play.
I can answer for myself, thank you very much.:smiley:
It's not just the "PKers put their own amusement over what other people want" thing. I already said, that was an oversimplification of my arguement. PKing is entertainment at the expense of others. It is an inherently malicious act- and I don't even feel like that point can be debated. Malicious is defined as "deliberately harmful", and PKing is the act of deliberately harming another player's character. PKing is, by definition, malicious.
Ah. Now, let us see. Assume that I am mature enough to realize that this is indeed just a game. Well, let us forget that we assume... I have made that distinction quite a while ago. Diablo II is a game. If someone chooses to cheat at this game, he is diminishing his own experience, much like cheating and winning at chess, or whatever else a game is. It is against the rules of the game. Is it immoral? Depends on the game. At Chess, it is. When playing the card game Munchkin, it is only immoral if someone catches you cheating... otherwise its just another brilliant strategical move to get to level 10 first. If someone hacked into my account and deleted my characters, I would be disappointed. I might even stop playing. After all, someone just cheated me out of the game. Blizzard set the rules, and one of the rules was " no 3rd party programs". If one does not wish to adhere to that, one does not need to play with me.
However, if someone legitly pk-ed me, I would not be disappointed or hurt. Might feel a bit of loss due to loosing a character, (you're an AB-er? toon?) but the rules of the game state that it is possible to PK. There is nothing ethically wrong with that if someone follows those rules (please understand that ethics are something different from morale ok? If you fancy an explanation, I might give you one... but see a post I made above.)
I understand the difference between morals and ethics, and I'm not really talking about ethics here. I don't know what ethical values you ascribe to. I'm talking moral absolutes, universal moral truths, such as minimizing harm and all that good stuff.
I also understand that you wouldn't be hurt or upset if you were PKed. As a result, when you created a game, then you could feel free to allow PKing. Some people feel differently. Surely you wouldn't go so far as to suggest that everyone should react to events exactly the same as you do?
There should be no rule against player killing. People should learn that this is a game, and that pk's are part of that game. If pk-ing was taken out by blizzard, I would not complain, nor yearn for the days to return. And yes, I am a mass murderer by anyone's standards when it comes to pk-ing. Currently the game is set out with hostiliy as added challenge, and there is nothing wrong with that. Chess is also set out to trash your opponent. Can't complain someone takes your pieces, whilst you might mentally damage him if you completely whipe him off the board. People who can't take their loss (and that is what this is about, taking your loss) should not play games.
A big problem with this is that some people are trying to play a different game than you are, but PKing forces them to play at your game. Sure, sure, sure, you could say that Blizzard's designers meant for everyone to play this PK game... but if I go onto a basketball court with a basketball, should I be obligated to play basketball? Could I not decide I wanted to play Horse, or 21, or even soccer for that matter? Isn't that the best part of Diablo- the choices? You can CHOOSE to play HC or SC, you can CHOOSE your class, you can CHOOSE your skills, you can CHOOSE what act you play and what enemies you kill and what challenges you create and what goals you set, and yet Blizzard has denied people the fundamental choice between whether they'd like to play PvP or PvM.
In the end, though, what it comes down to for me is the same arguement I've been hashing over and over again. We should all be excellent to our fellow man. If the fat slow kid is playing tag with you and he starts crying because everyone keeps tagging him and picking on him, would you just tag him harder and tell him he should have picked a different game, or are you going to cut him some slack and start tagging other, faster kids?
That's really what this boils down to. Bullying. I've never held much stock with bullying. Following the rules when they're obviously to the detriment of others, and noticeably upsetting to others, is in my mind simply immoral. Can't we all just be excellent to each other?
Also, please note: I'm not saying "Come on guys, be excellent to me". I've never been PKed, and have only been hostiled once by a friend who wanted to show me what it sounded like. In fact, I think I'd enjoy playing in a public game with the threat of PK hanging over my head... if I *choose* to. But I want that choice.
MoUsE_WiZ
03-08-2006, 01:49
I'm done here, you haven't said anything new, and I don't have a new response.
In closing, find a new game, if you want to go for a walk in the woods without fear of taking a paintball in the back I'd suggest those woods over there that aren't a clearly marked paintball course.
A big problem with this is that some people are trying to play a different game than you are, but PKing forces them to play at your game. Sure, sure, sure, you could say that Blizzard's designers meant for everyone to play this PK game... but if I go onto a basketball court with a basketball, should I be obligated to play basketball? Could I not decide I wanted to play Horse, or 21, or even soccer for that matter? Isn't that the best part of Diablo- the choices? You can CHOOSE to play HC or SC, you can CHOOSE your class, you can CHOOSE your skills, you can CHOOSE what act you play and what enemies you kill and what challenges you create and what goals you set, and yet Blizzard has denied people the fundamental choice between whether they'd like to play PvP or PvM.
I think this is your problem with PK, you *think* you have no choice. Blizzard (like Mouse has continually said) gave you a choice of whether or not you'd be PK'd. SC or HC. You chose HC and as a corollary to that choice you decided to have the opportunity to be PK'd. You can say anything you want to about whether it's right or wrong or shouldn't be allowed. But the final point is you DID choose to have the ability to be PK'd.
In your eyes you *think* that this is bullying. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, it's all about the point of view you *choose* to take. Blizzard coded the game in such a way that it was viable option to be PK'd and have since implemented many other lines of code to protect you from being PK'd, but have not yet taken away the ability to be PK'd. There is a reason for this and if you *really* don't like it then maybe you shouldn't play HC.
It is a part of the game regardless of how many well thought out points you make or how many flaws you find in everyone else's arguments. I'm not saying you're right and I'm not saying your wrong. You're just beating a dead horse that you can't change. You should just accept the fact that nothing is going to be done to change the ability to be PK'd.
This thread moves to fast for me to respond :) I come back and it has 3 more pages. :) Most action I've seen on forums in ages.
Ain't it great?
I'm not trying to impose my will upon anyone, anymore than a homeowner who locks his door is "imposing his will" upon the people who would break into his house.
a homeowner who locks his door can be equated to a player creating a private game. You have locked the pkers out of your game and made your choice.
By stepping out into the streets and arenas clearly marked "danger pvps" you accept the risk.
A big problem with this is that some people are trying to play a different game than you are, but PKing forces them to play at your game. Sure, sure, sure, you could say that Blizzard's designers meant for everyone to play this PK game... but if I go onto a basketball court with a basketball, should I be obligated to play basketball? Could I not decide I wanted to play Horse, or 21, or even soccer for that matter?
I think this is probably the most frustrating part of my argument is that you insist that PK's limit your options and force you to play your game. It simply isn't so. Private games exist for this matter exactly. You say you play in a 100% pk-free environment so obviously you have found a method to limit pks and again choose your own game.
A PK chooses to play diablo to take advantage of the ability to try and pvp as many people as possible. If every pvm player decided to play in private games eliminating all public games taking away the opportunity to PK, that would be the PVM players forcing the PK to find a different way to play diablo. It is the same argument and it doesn't stand up.
In the end, though, what it comes down to for me is the same arguement I've been hashing over and over again. We should all be excellent to our fellow man. If the fat slow kid is playing tag with you and he starts crying because everyone keeps tagging him and picking on him, would you just tag him harder and tell him he should have picked a different game, or are you going to cut him some slack and start tagging other, faster kids?
Since this is all academic i'll bring some of my academics into it :) Being an english student I've studied the different varieties of popular narratives (books, movies, video games). People read a book to achieve "enlightenment." The joy of a book comes at the point where you learn something new either about what you are reading or about life in general.
The reason people play video games is for "mastery." The joy from a video game comes when you reach the plateau of "game master," having accomplished everything you can. This is why diablo is fundamentally limitless for PVP players. There is no end-game. There is always a new goal/target. The joy and goal comes from competing with others (pvp or pvm) and establishing superiority. Not for moral reasons but for simple gaming pride...afterall conquering and mastery is the goal.
Now having said all that and finally getting back to your point: If you are playing a game of tag and there is a slow kid who cannot compete with the rest, is it immoral to chase him first and tag him? absolutely not. It is strategically the most efficient way to play the game. Eliminate the weak. Afterall, "tag" is still a game and as mentioned earlier the goal is mastery. By eliminating the weaker competetors (Because they are still competetors) you are progressing closer to your goal of game master. It is unfortunate that the slow kid is stuck playing a game where he cannot compete as well as the others but no one forced him to play this particular game.
The PK is playing the game the way it was intended and the "slow kid" that you have paralelled as the PVM'ers should not feel maliciously picked on because they are being attacked by the strong, it is simply one of the steps to game mastery.
As a side note, if a player is looking to accomplish game mastery in a strictly PVM manner, as mentioned earlier the KTA groups are a perfect example of how PVM players still have options to attempt game mastery in their own way while avoiding PKs.
....i rambled way to much here i hope my point wasn't lost :(
I'm done here, you haven't said anything new, and I don't have a new response.
In closing, find a new game, if you want to go for a walk in the woods without fear of taking a paintball in the back I'd suggest those woods over there that aren't a clearly marked paintball course.
True, but on the other hand, I have to say, it's a pretty jerky thing to do to sit around and fire paintballs at the guy who is not wearing paintball gear or carrying a paintball gun, whether he's on the paintball course or not.
I think this is your problem with PK, you *think* you have no choice. Blizzard (like Mouse has continually said) gave you a choice of whether or not you'd be PK'd. SC or HC. You chose HC and as a corollary to that choice you decided to have the opportunity to be PK'd. You can say anything you want to about whether it's right or wrong or shouldn't be allowed. But the final point is you DID choose to have the ability to be PK'd.
In your eyes you *think* that this is bullying. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, it's all about the point of view you *choose* to take. Blizzard coded the game in such a way that it was viable option to be PK'd and have since implemented many other lines of code to protect you from being PK'd, but have not yet taken away the ability to be PK'd. There is a reason for this and if you *really* don't like it then maybe you shouldn't play HC.
It is a part of the game regardless of how many well thought out points you make or how many flaws you find in everyone else's arguments. I'm not saying you're right and I'm not saying your wrong. You're just beating a dead horse that you can't change. You should just accept the fact that nothing is going to be done to change the ability to be PK'd.
I understand that it's a part of the game. I understand that it probably isn't going to change. If the Diablo Designers haven't given in even after Sirian sent them reams of arguements, then they aren't ever going to give in. I'm not arguing this point. I'm just saying that it isn't "right".
a homeowner who locks his door can be equated to a player creating a private game. You have locked the pkers out of your game and made your choice.
By stepping out into the streets and arenas clearly marked "danger pvps" you accept the risk.As I've said before, though... just because I accept the risk does not make it right.
Since this is all academic i'll bring some of my academics into it :) Being an english student I've studied the different varieties of popular narratives (books, movies, video games). People read a book to achieve "enlightenment." The joy of a book comes at the point where you learn something new either about what you are reading or about life in general.
The reason people play video games is for "mastery." The joy from a video game comes when you reach the plateau of "game master," having accomplished everything you can. This is why diablo is fundamentally limitless for PVP players. There is no end-game. There is always a new goal/target. The joy and goal comes from competing with others (pvp or pvm) and establishing superiority. Not for moral reasons but for simple gaming pride...afterall conquering and mastery is the goal.
Now having said all that and finally getting back to your point: If you are playing a game of tag and there is a slow kid who cannot compete with the rest, is it immoral to chase him first and tag him? absolutely not. It is strategically the most efficient way to play the game. Eliminate the weak. Afterall, "tag" is still a game and as mentioned earlier the goal is mastery. By eliminating the weaker competetors (Because they are still competetors) you are progressing closer to your goal of game master. It is unfortunate that the slow kid is stuck playing a game where he cannot compete as well as the others but no one forced him to play this particular game.
The PK is playing the game the way it was intended and the "slow kid" that you have paralelled as the PVM'ers should not feel maliciously picked on because they are being attacked by the strong, it is simply one of the steps to game mastery.
As a side note, if a player is looking to accomplish game mastery in a strictly PVM manner, as mentioned earlier the KTA groups are a perfect example of how PVM players still have options to attempt game mastery in their own way while avoiding PKs.
....i rambled way to much here i hope my point wasn't lost :(
My mother is a preschool teacher, and I have to tell you, if you picked on the fat slow kid in tag, she'd call your parents in for a parent/teacher conference and tell them that you had some problems with your interpersonal skills. Never should we lose sight that, while we're playing a game, we're playing with real people who have real feelings. Now, if the fat slow kid doesn't mind you tagging him every time, that's just fine and dandy, but you should have a care for that person's feelings.
Again, what it all comes down to is this: be excellent to your fellow man. Let's go back to the original patch, when Telekinesis could pick up anything, and a common scam was to trick some n00b into dropping a great item then stealing it with TK. Sure, it wasn't against the rules. Yeah, the poor sap accepted that risk by engaging in a trade. Absolutely, the whole point of a game is to achieve mastery and assert your dominance over others, especially the poor stupid n00bs. Doesn't change the fact that it's a really really jerky thing to do. PKing is no different. It's allowed, and it's all just a game, but it still violates the #1 rule: be excellent to your fellow man.
Tarantella
03-08-2006, 03:19
Personally, I have no problems with legit pk players. There are some great anti pk players out there too. They make the game interesting as an occasional occurence. But, its not what the 'good' players do within the structure of the game that counts.
Unfortunately, it is what the 'bad' players do with their cheats and attitudes to other people whilst using the hostile button that tarnish the game. If you've played on Euro HC ladder for the last 4 years the constant tppking that took place before the latest patches was monotonous and ruined the online public game for many.
So no matter how well you justify your own behaviour as a pk player what would the game be like if if everyone behaved like you?
True, but on the other hand, I have to say, it's a pretty jerky thing to do to sit around and fire paintballs at the guy who is not wearing paintball gear or carrying a paintball gun, whether he's on the paintball course or not.
Well it really comes down to who's fault is it: 1) the guy ruthlessly shooting on a helpless victim or 2) the helpless victim for naively wandering unprepared in hostile grounds. I can't see how anyone can really say one is more prominent over the other
My mother is a preschool teacher, and I have to tell you, if you picked on the fat slow kid in tag, she'd call your parents in for a parent/teacher conference and tell them that you had some problems with your interpersonal skills. Never should we lose sight that, while we're playing a game, we're playing with real people who have real feelings. Now, if the fat slow kid doesn't mind you tagging him every time, that's just fine and dandy, but you should have a care for that person's feelings.
no offence but if my son's teacher calls a parent teacher conference with me because my son goes after the slow kid first in a game of tag i'm going to tell her to quit being so sensitive.
If a kid is going to compete in a game in tag or a dii player is going to compete in a game where others are trying to pk, they have to be prepared to actually "compete." If they aren't, then they should prepare to lose. That is the nature of competition.
sorry for the double post.
Just thought of another comparison because the sensitive comment wasn't very explanitory.
Since I was 4 I have been playing sports competitively (17 years). I have also umpired and coached young and old kids in top level competitive baseball. The biggest comparison I see is the difference between a 10 year old baseball player in "house league" versus the 10 year old baseball player playing "AAA rep baseball." House league is a league that has no requirements and the competition is low. It is for less talented kids to get together and just have fun. AAA is for the competitive talented kids to expand their skill and compete against other players representing other cities. The kids I coached were AAA and even at 10 years old and they were learning the basics, we taught them to perfect the basics and execute and therefore win.
These AAA athletes at 10 years old are going to go for the win in everything they do, be it a championship game for a provincial title, or a simple game of tag between classes at recess.
The house league kids are going to be less tactical and less organized in their game competitively and recreationally. These are the kids that will chase around anyone and won't care about winning.
Are either of these kids less social? certainly not. From my experience the AAA players are often more mature then the other ones.
Well it really comes down to who's fault is it: 1) the guy ruthlessly shooting on a helpless victim or 2) the helpless victim for naively wandering unprepared in hostile grounds. I can't see how anyone can really say one is more prominent over the other
Okay, so even if it's 50% the other person's fault... or even if it's 90% the other person's fault... does that excuse you of all responsibility?
no offence but if my son's teacher calls a parent teacher conference with me because my son goes after the slow kid first in a game of tag i'm going to tell her to quit being so sensitive.
If a kid is going to compete in a game in tag or a dii player is going to compete in a game where others are trying to pk, they have to be prepared to actually "compete." If they aren't, then they should prepare to lose. That is the nature of competition.
It's not a matter of being sensitive. It's a matter of reinforcing good habits. I have a lot of experience on the subject of early childhood development, and I can tell you that a child who is raised valuing competition over the feelings of others is going to grow up into an adult that values competition over the feelings of others. Now, don't get me wrong... I enjoy a good competition, too. I would love to PvP (although I don't stand a chance because of my anti-dupe stance) or PK. I think it would be a lot of fun to play in a game with a PK coming after me, too. And I can definitely see the draw in hunting people down. But at the same time... feelings have to come first. If I hostiled someone, and they said "please leave me alone", I would leave them alone. That's just common courtesy, good manners, and human decency in my opinion.
sorry for the double post.
Just thought of another comparison because the sensitive comment wasn't very explanitory.
Since I was 4 I have been playing sports competitively (17 years). I have also umpired and coached young and old kids in top level competitive baseball. The biggest comparison I see is the difference between a 10 year old baseball player in "house league" versus the 10 year old baseball player playing "AAA rep baseball." House league is a league that has no requirements and the competition is low. It is for less talented kids to get together and just have fun. AAA is for the competitive talented kids to expand their skill and compete against other players representing other cities. The kids I coached were AAA and even at 10 years old and they were learning the basics, we taught them to perfect the basics and execute and therefore win.
These AAA athletes at 10 years old are going to go for the win in everything they do, be it a championship game for a provincial title, or a simple game of tag between classes at recess.
The house league kids are going to be less tactical and less organized in their game competitively and recreationally. These are the kids that will chase around anyone and won't care about winning.
Are either of these kids less social? certainly not. From my experience the AAA players are often more mature then the other ones.
I'm not at all saying that those AAA players are less social. I'm saying that if those AAA players then go into a "house league" and start just abusing the other kids (not literally, in a figurative sports sense), if they abuse the other kids and yell at them, then yes, I would say they had social issues. At that point, the drive to compete has overridden their basic human courtesy, has even overridden their awareness of the people around them. And that's an issue. Now, if they want to play ultra-competitive baseball with other AAA kids (aka duel), then that's fine. But when they go into the "house leagues" and start getting all super-competitive (aka PK), that's another issue.
Also, not to get too far off topic, but I've also had some experiences with these super-competitive kids. In my experience, it's not that they're more mature... it's usually a result of parental pressure. Just my $.02.
Socialism
03-08-2006, 04:34
Hahaha... sorry, I just had a flash of imagery of AAA kids running around PKing their classmates with baseball bats.
Wrong, but funny nonetheless.
I haven't contributed to this discussion at all, but I'm an avid reader!
i hear what you're saying about parent pressure but in Canada that really isn't a huge issue with baseball. More hockey. I know its a huge generalization but from my coaching experience and working in a sporting goods store it's just what I know.
Comparing the AAA players to the house league players is a great idea. However your comparison is hugely bias. Saying that they would go in and make fun of them and taunt them etc is a huge exageration of what a PK is. What you're talking about is PKing a person, standing over them taunting them, following them around from game to game saying "nya nya i killed you."
A better comparison would be a house league team plays against a AAA team and the AAA team puts its best players in and runs up the score. The house league team takes a beating and probably feels demoralized about their playing ability. Was the AAA team a little jerky? yeah probably. Is it a big deal and a huge reflection on their characteristics? I don't think so. The AAA team at no time said "we'll take it easy on you because you're not as good as competitive."
We're not talking about helping out an old lady from being mugged, or tossing a homeless person some spare change, we're talking about a video game that is done for personal entertainment. Human decency is taking it too far. Should a romance novelist stop writing books because they promote infadelity(sp?)? Should a murder mystery novelist stop writing about murder because his readers get enjoyment from reading about the tragedies of others?
I have a question for ya. Say you're a 40 sorceress and you a lvling by yourself in normal. You don't get alot of experience from solo games so you need to join public since none of your friends are on. No Baal run games exist and no one will join them when you create them. Your only option is to join a normal act 4 game and do your EXP stuff there. While in the game the rest of the players are working on act 4 but fully intend on going through act 5 for quests and experience. This is your only option to level your own character. Do you stay in the game and take away from their potential experience and questing opportunities or do you give up and go lvl slowly by yourself because you don't want to be rude?
edit: to answer your 50%/90% question. I don't feel any responsibility if it was 90% my fault. But if I did (and I once did), the fact that it would be 50/50 or 10/90, yes it does kind of absolve me from feeling responsible. In a car crash, if I'm driving 5 miles over the speed limit and I get t-boned at an intersection by someone running a red light, sure i was speeding a little but I'm not going to feel bad about it when the other guy ran the red.
i hear what you're saying about parent pressure but in Canada that really isn't a huge issue with baseball. More hockey. I know its a huge generalization but from my coaching experience and working in a sporting goods store it's just what I know.
Yeah, I know, it's really all done on a case-by-case basis, I was just saying what my experiences had been.:smiley:
Comparing the AAA players to the house league players is a great idea. However your comparison is hugely bias. Saying that they would go in and make fun of them and taunt them etc is a huge exageration of what a PK is. What you're talking about is PKing a person, standing over them taunting them, following them around from game to game saying "nya nya i killed you."
A better comparison would be a house league team plays against a AAA team and the AAA team puts its best players in and runs up the score. The house league team takes a beating and probably feels demoralized about their playing ability. Was the AAA team a little jerky? yeah probably. Is it a big deal and a huge reflection on their characteristics? I don't think so. The AAA team at no time said "we'll take it easy on you because you're not as good as competitive."
Ah, running up the score. Probably not the best analogy to make, because I personally believe that running up the score is wrong, too. And the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference agrees with me- they recently created a rule that any high-school football coach whose team wins by more than 50 points will be disqualified from coaching the next game.
We're not talking about helping out an old lady from being mugged, or tossing a homeless person some spare change, we're talking about a video game that is done for personal entertainment. Human decency is taking it too far. Should a romance novelist stop writing books because they promote infadelity(sp?)? Should a murder mystery novelist stop writing about murder because his readers get enjoyment from reading about the tragedies of others?
I understand that this isn't as pressing of an issue as muggings or homelessness, but I do think that it's a question of decency. Granted, it's not like PKing represents all that is wrong with society, but right is right.
I also think both of those analogies are way out of left field and obviously not applicable, although if you want me to address them I will.
I have a question for ya. Say you're a 40 sorceress and you a lvling by yourself in normal. You don't get alot of experience from solo games so you need to join public since none of your friends are on. No Baal run games exist and no one will join them when you create them. Your only option is to join a normal act 4 game and do your EXP stuff there. While in the game the rest of the players are working on act 4 but fully intend on going through act 5 for quests and experience. This is your only option to level your own character. Do you stay in the game and take away from their potential experience and questing opportunities or do you give up and go lvl slowly by yourself because you don't want to be rude?
Good question. In that situation, I would either (a) ask everyone if it was okay if I ran A5, or (b) ask if I could join them. If they said no, then absolutely I would be on my own merry little way. Absolutely I would without question go level by myself if they told me they didn't want me to quest act 5. Simple courtesy.
edit: to answer your 50%/90% question. I don't feel any responsibility if it was 90% my fault. But if I did (and I once did), the fact that it would be 50/50 or 10/90, yes it does kind of absolve me from feeling responsible. In a car crash, if I'm driving 5 miles over the speed limit and I get t-boned at an intersection by someone running a red light, sure i was speeding a little but I'm not going to feel bad about it when the other guy ran the red.
Well, if you get T-boned, then that's not really any your fault. Still, that's a bad attitude to take, in my opinion. "Sure, I'm at fault, but I'm not as much at fault as the other guy, so it's cool".
The reason people play video games is for "mastery."
Speak for yourself.
I understand the difference between morals and ethics, and I'm not really talking about ethics here. I don't know what ethical values you ascribe to. I'm talking moral absolutes, universal moral truths, such as minimizing harm and all that good stuff.
But you se, that is the thing. What you hold to be absolute truths, universal even, is not abolsute, no runiversal, it is simply what is considered socially acceptable behaviour here. In the time slaves were not considered immoral, universal truths were different. It is not said it was better, simply different.
I also understand that you wouldn't be hurt or upset if you were PKed. As a result, when you created a game, then you could feel free to allow PKing. Some people feel differently. Surely you wouldn't go so far as to suggest that everyone should react to events exactly the same as you do?
A big problem with this is that some people are trying to play a different game than you are, but PKing forces them to play at your game. Sure, sure, sure, you could say that Blizzard's designers meant for everyone to play this PK game... but if I go onto a basketball court with a basketball, should I be obligated to play basketball? Could I not decide I wanted to play Horse, or 21, or even soccer for that matter? Isn't that the best part of Diablo- the choices? You can CHOOSE to play HC or SC, you can CHOOSE your class, you can CHOOSE your skills, you can CHOOSE what act you play and what enemies you kill and what challenges you create and what goals you set, and yet Blizzard has denied people the fundamental choice between whether they'd like to play PvP or PvM.
If you go on a basketball court, you can play whatever you like, but if someone wants to play bastekball whilst you play soccer, you would be wise to go and play somewhere else. It is a basketball field, not a soccerfield.
In the end, though, what it comes down to for me is the same arguement I've been hashing over and over again. We should all be excellent to our fellow man. If the fat slow kid is playing tag with you and he starts crying because everyone keeps tagging him and picking on him, would you just tag him harder and tell him he should have picked a different game, or are you going to cut him some slack and start tagging other, faster kids?
That's really what this boils down to. Bullying. I've never held much stock with bullying. Following the rules when they're obviously to the detriment of others, and noticeably upsetting to others, is in my mind simply immoral. Can't we all just be excellent to each other?
Also, please note: I'm not saying "Come on guys, be excellent to me". I've never been PKed, and have only been hostiled once by a friend who wanted to show me what it sounded like. In fact, I think I'd enjoy playing in a public game with the threat of PK hanging over my head... if I *choose* to. But I want that choice.
I would neither be mean to the fat kid nor not tag him, because cutting him slack will also upset him because then he'll feel cheated. I'd behave to him exactly as if he were no different than the others. That's what I always liked, not to be treated different but equal.
As said, yuo're an excellent opponent, and we will not find an agreement over this. We think Diablo II and its current system is fine, apart from the hacking scum. You think it isn't. We agree to disagree and leave it at that.
:badteeth:
Ah, running up the score. Probably not the best analogy to make, because I personally believe that running up the score is wrong, too. And the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference agrees with me- they recently created a rule that any high-school football coach whose team wins by more than 50 points will be disqualified from coaching the next game.
This has to be the most stupid and completely pointless rule ever.
Teams can be so much worse than the other one that there is NO chance the other team won't win by more than 50 in Highschool football.
Example, my Highschool football team (my junior year) was ranked 6th or so in State, we played a team that hasn't won a game in 7 years. After the first half of the first quarter no starter played for the rest of that game. What happened? We went on to set every offensive record but passing in a game. This means all we did was run the ball every play right up the middle and they still couldn't stop us.
We tried to not run the score up, but it was just not possible not to, without being arrogant a-holes and downing the ball or intentionally throwing plays away. We won that game by well over 60 points.
Maybe that rule should be changed to not allowed to coach if there was no major attempt at not running up the score (Example: not passing the ball when it's obvious the other team is going to lose.)
It is a basketball field, not a soccerfield.
If you want to score a homerun with your foosball go somewhere else. :badteeth:
Ah, running up the score. Probably not the best analogy to make, because I personally believe that running up the score is wrong, too. And the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference agrees with me- they recently created a rule that any high-school football coach whose team wins by more than 50 points will be disqualified from coaching the next game.
because you don't like running up the score is why it is a great analogy, it fits perfectly :)
BigD makes some sense in his post (although I wouldn't refer to yours as the stupidest argument ever ;)), in that just because you beat a team badly doesn't mean you're doing it to be malicious to the other team. In his case he couldn't help it. I can give you another scenerio.
In a tournament a team may play 4 games in the round robin. at the end of the round robin the winners of each division go to the playoffs. If two teams are tied then they revert to tiebreakers. Sometimes a tiebreaker will be "runs scored" or "runs against." So if you are playing a weak team in a tournament, although you know they won't enjoy having the score run up on them, it is better for you to do it so that you can have the edge later on in the tournament if it comes down to a tiebreaker. I would be very disapointed if it came down to a tiebreaker and I didn't go to the playoffs because I took it easy on the weak team because they were playing in a tournament that was out of their league.
Good question. In that situation, I would either (a) ask everyone if it was okay if I ran A5, or (b) ask if I could join them. If they said no, then absolutely I would be on my own merry little way. Absolutely I would without question go level by myself if they told me they didn't want me to quest act 5. Simple courtesy.
Sure it would be curteous. But what if there were no other games where you could level. Basically you came on to play a game and you cannot now because your only option would result in interferring with that particular game. Your choices are to play by yourself and not accomplish what you came on to do, or to play in that game and get what you wanted to get. The others, although unhappy about it can very easily make a new game where the quests are open and resume from where they were.
It may sound selfish but the simple fact is Diablo ii is a form of entertainment. I don't log on so that I can perform good semaritan (sp?) deeds in a virtual world. I log on so that I can be entertained. Anyone who says differently is confused about the purpose of Diablo and is entirely forgetting that it is a game.
What I assume your reply would be, "I'm not saying you need to come on and just do good deeds, but you can at least be courteous and good to your fellow man while playing." I only presume this because I've heard it many times before in this debate :) The problem with what your saying and what your suggested actions are is that they do not line up. I believe I can be courteous and respectful while I pk. You believe that the very act of PKing is discourteous and disrespectful. And since neither of us are really going to change our views it's a stalemate :)
Well, if you get T-boned, then that's not really any your fault. Still, that's a bad attitude to take, in my opinion. "Sure, I'm at fault, but I'm not as much at fault as the other guy, so it's cool".
Maybe you just skimmed the scenerio and missed the fact that I was t-boned as a result of the other driving running a red light. Is it a bad attitude to place the blame on someone who ran a red light and slammed into another car as a result? surely not.
Speak for yourself.
I wasn't speaking for myself. I was repeating academic scholars who spend their lives researching and educating on the topic. If you want I can quote them and give you references.
EDIT: I really like Barry's comment about playing soccer on the basketball court as I think that is exactly the situation we have.
Ah, running up the score. Probably not the best analogy to make, because I personally believe that running up the score is wrong, too. And the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference agrees with me- they recently created a rule that any high-school football coach whose team wins by more than 50 points will be disqualified from coaching the next game.
My eyes just bled. Do you actually agree with that?
I wasn't speaking for myself. I was repeating academic scholars who spend their lives researching and educating on the topic. If you want I can quote them and give you references.
In that case, you can at least preface it with "people with meaningless degrees who have nothing better to do are of the opinion that..."
I, for one, do not play to master any game nor to be the best. I do it for the fun/challenge/distraction and I couldn't care less that others are better at it than I am, as I find unsolicited online competition utterly childish. Diablo, specifically, is a fun multiplayer game and for me, hardcore pvm is there for that added challenge but like others, I believe that the player should be able to choose where the danger comes from. All in all, I realize that it's mere wishful thinking--however, there's nothing wrong with wanting a slightly better version of something you like. I still don't see a reason why Blizzard couldn't have made hostility optional. I must admit, though, that killing a PK-er was more of a thrill than finding my first Soj--but I would never have enjoyed(or even considered) it had they not attacked the innocent.
In that case, you can at least preface it with "people with meaningless degrees who have nothing better to do are of the opinion that..."
And that is your opinion. I'm sure you have a University degree which qualifies you to pass said judgements?
I, for one, do not play to master any game nor to be the best. I do it for the fun/challenge/distraction and I couldn't care less that others are better at it than I am, as I find unsolicited online competition utterly childish. Diablo, specifically, is a fun multiplayer game and for me, hardcore pvm is there for that added challenge but like others, I believe that the player should be able to choose where the danger comes from. All in all, I realize that it's mere wishful thinking--however, there's nothing wrong with wanting a slightly better version of something you like. I still don't see a reason why Blizzard couldn't have made hostility optional. I must admit, though, that killing a PK-er was more of a thrill than finding my first Soj--but I would never have enjoyed(or even considered) it had they not attacked the innocent.
"fun/[i]challenge[/]/distraction"
If you are doing something for a challenge then are you not trying to accomplish a task and therefore pursuing mastery?
mastery
n 1: great skillfulness and knowledge of some subject or activity; "a good command of French" [syn: command, control]
2: power to dominate or defeat; "mastery of the seas"
#2 can refer to defeating other people or defeating Baal in hell mode.
You said that you like others believe that you should be able to choose where danger comes from. Unfortunately as has been repeatedly stated in this thread, Blizzard does not agree with you. Mousey's whole argument is that you chose where the danger comes from the moment you bought the game.
But you se, that is the thing. What you hold to be absolute truths, universal even, is not abolsute, no runiversal, it is simply what is considered socially acceptable behaviour here. In the time slaves were not considered immoral, universal truths were different. It is not said it was better, simply different.
I believe in universal moral truths. I believe slavery is never right, whether it's condoned by society or not. Like I said before, Rules != Right.
I would neither be mean to the fat kid nor not tag him, because cutting him slack will also upset him because then he'll feel cheated. I'd behave to him exactly as if he were no different than the others. That's what I always liked, not to be treated different but equal.
Newsflash: Not everyone is like you. Not everyone feels the way you do about everything. You should respect how people actually feel, not how you might feel if you were them.
As said, yuo're an excellent opponent, and we will not find an agreement over this. We think Diablo II and its current system is fine, apart from the hacking scum. You think it isn't. We agree to disagree and leave it at that.
:badteeth:
I'm not arguing to convince you. I've already accepted the fact that you're immoral scum whose sole purpose in life is to loot and pillage at will completely mindless of the consequences of your actions. I'm arguing to convince that lurker who's on the fence and not participating.:smiley:
(Edit: in case it's not immediately obvious, that whole "immoral scum" thing was a joke.:wink3: )
This has to be the most stupid and completely pointless rule ever.
Teams can be so much worse than the other one that there is NO chance the other team won't win by more than 50 in Highschool football.
Example, my Highschool football team (my junior year) was ranked 6th or so in State, we played a team that hasn't won a game in 7 years. After the first half of the first quarter no starter played for the rest of that game. What happened? We went on to set every offensive record but passing in a game. This means all we did was run the ball every play right up the middle and they still couldn't stop us.
We tried to not run the score up, but it was just not possible not to, without being arrogant a-holes and downing the ball or intentionally throwing plays away. We won that game by well over 60 points.
Maybe that rule should be changed to not allowed to coach if there was no major attempt at not running up the score (Example: not passing the ball when it's obvious the other team is going to lose.)
That's exactly the point. Sometimes you're so clearly superior to the other team that no matter what you try, you'll wind up beating them around. Running up the score against a clearly outmatched opponent is just bad sportsmanship. If you're up by 49 points, then take a knee and end the game.
What kind of lesson do you think they should be teaching in High School? That it's okay to push around someone who is clearly overmatched? Running up the score is just a crass display of "Might makes Right". Is that what we want to be exposing our impressionable youth to?
because you don't like running up the score is why it is a great analogy, it fits perfectly :)
BigD makes some sense in his post (although I wouldn't refer to yours as the stupidest argument ever ;)), in that just because you beat a team badly doesn't mean you're doing it to be malicious to the other team. In his case he couldn't help it. I can give you another scenerio.
In a tournament a team may play 4 games in the round robin. at the end of the round robin the winners of each division go to the playoffs. If two teams are tied then they revert to tiebreakers. Sometimes a tiebreaker will be "runs scored" or "runs against." So if you are playing a weak team in a tournament, although you know they won't enjoy having the score run up on them, it is better for you to do it so that you can have the edge later on in the tournament if it comes down to a tiebreaker. I would be very disapointed if it came down to a tiebreaker and I didn't go to the playoffs because I took it easy on the weak team because they were playing in a tournament that was out of their league.
Bad example. In your example, that's not running up the score, that's providing your team with a competitive advantage. We're not talking about tournaments or games where the results carry over from one to the next. We're talking about football games that all go down as either one win or one loss in the record book whether you win by 5 or 50.
If a professional team runs up the score, then whatever. I think it's crass, I think it's poor sportsmanship, but I accept it because they're all adults and it's not like they're learning bad lessons from it. I don't care about baseball teams running up the score, either, because I understand that the nature of the game is such that any lead can be erased in one inning- so build the biggest lead you can. But in football, it's different. By the end of the 3rd quarter, there are certain leads that are truly insurmountable. At that point, good sportsmanship is to acknowledge your victory and run out the clock. One of the main purposes of high school athletics is to teach students good sportsmanship and values. What better value to teach than "Don't take advantage of those weaker or less fortunate than you"?
Sure it would be curteous. But what if there were no other games where you could level. Basically you came on to play a game and you cannot now because your only option would result in interferring with that particular game. Your choices are to play by yourself and not accomplish what you came on to do, or to play in that game and get what you wanted to get. The others, although unhappy about it can very easily make a new game where the quests are open and resume from where they were.
Yes, they can always make a new game... but you can always level alone, too. You make it sound like if you don't take advantage of this group and ignore their wishes then you won't be able to get anything out of your Diablo experience. That's just bull. Ask them if you can run Baal, ask them if you can run Cows, and if they say no, then accept it. Sure, that's awfully rude of them, since they can always make a new game, but the way to respond to rude people is not to be rude to them in turn. Imagine if every time you were rude to someone, they were rude right back to you. The world would be a huge mess. At some point, you've just got to be the bigger man.
It may sound selfish but the simple fact is Diablo ii is a form of entertainment. I don't log on so that I can perform good semaritan (sp?) deeds in a virtual world. I log on so that I can be entertained. Anyone who says differently is confused about the purpose of Diablo and is entirely forgetting that it is a game.
I go to movies to be entertained, too... but if I'm sitting next to the wheelchair area, and someone wants my seat so that they can sit next to their friend who is in a wheel chair, then I'm going to give it to them. I wouldn't have gone to the movies for the express purpose of doing good deeds, but if the opportunity presented itself, absolutely I would. I don't really do *ANYTHING* for the express purpose of doing good deeds, but I like to think that I take advantage of the opportunity when it presents itself. That's just, in my mind, part of being a good person.
I once read that the mark of a good person wasn't that they did kind things that they enjoyed doing, or wanted to do... it was that they did kind things, even though they DIDN'T want to. If we do good deeds just because we enjoy them, then we aren't doing good deeds- we're only worried about our own enjoyment. It's when we don't enjoy them that they become truly good deeds.
What I assume your reply would be, "I'm not saying you need to come on and just do good deeds, but you can at least be courteous and good to your fellow man while playing." I only presume this because I've heard it many times before in this debate :) The problem with what your saying and what your suggested actions are is that they do not line up. I believe I can be courteous and respectful while I pk. You believe that the very act of PKing is discourteous and disrespectful. And since neither of us are really going to change our views it's a stalemate :)
Not really. If I don't want you to PK me, and you do it anyway, that is disrespectful to my wishes, and disrespectful to me. End of discussion. Disrespect is a lack of courteous regard. Destroying "my" property without my permission is not courteous, and ignoring my wishes certainly counts as treating them with disregard. I mean, by its very basic definition, wantonly ignoring my desires is treating me with disregard and disrespect.
Maybe you just skimmed the scenerio and missed the fact that I was t-boned as a result of the other driving running a red light. Is it a bad attitude to place the blame on someone who ran a red light and slammed into another car as a result? surely not.
I already said that getting T-Boned is a bad example. That's 0% your fault. You might have been speeding, but you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you were going 5 miles over and you got T-boned, that's no more your fault than if you were going 5 miles under and you got T-boned, or if you were just walking down the street and a piano fell on you. It's just a case of being in the wrong place in the wrong time.
My eyes just bled. Do you actually agree with that?
Yes. What's the reason for high school sports? Why do they exist? What is their purpose? Go to any athletic association, and the answer will *ALWAYS* be something to the effect of "to teach discipline, respect, and sportsmanship". How does running up the score teach respect and sportsmanship? Personally, it looks to me like it does exactly the opposite. As a result, it runs EXACTLY COUNTER to the desires of every high school athletic association, and it makes perfect sense for them to make a rule against it, just like they make rules against intentionally injuring players, or cheating.
BongoFury
04-08-2006, 03:46
I was looking through some old stuff today and I came across this. It gave me a real chuckle.
"With our current client-server architecture, I highly doubt that
such hacks will ever be made. However, in the unlikely and
regrettable event that item hacks, dupes, autokills, or the like
do happen, and are not immediatly fixable, we would obviously
consider further and adequate PK protections."
Max Schaefer
VP Blizzard North
6/19/00
I was looking through some old stuff today and I came across this. It gave me a real chuckle.
"With our current client-server architecture, I highly doubt that
such hacks will ever be made. However, in the unlikely and
regrettable event that item hacks, dupes, autokills, or the like
do happen, and are not immediatly fixable, we would obviously
consider further and adequate PK protections."
Max Schaefer
VP Blizzard North
6/19/00
Haven't they though? 10 second waypoint hostile. Certain attacks disappearing when you go to town (traps, hammers, hydras).
Obviously it's not up to as much as we would want but he didn't lie :)
Running up the score against a clearly outmatched opponent is just bad sportsmanship. If you're up by 49 points, then take a knee and end the game.
I think taking a knee, although your heart is in the right place, is as much if not more demeaning then running up the score. It is basically saying "You can't compete with us so we're just gonna not play to spare your feelings."
As I said, equally insulting if not more. As an athlete and a competitive person I would want them to at the very least continue to play with their worst players. If I can't compete against a teams worst players then I shouldn't be playing at all.
One of the main purposes of high school athletics is to teach students good sportsmanship and values. What better value to teach than "Don't take advantage of those weaker or less fortunate than you"?
That is the obvious political correct answer. Of course they aren't going to say that they want successful representation of their school on a competitive level. Would a Miss Universe contestant win if she said "I want to win because I have self-confidence issues and want to prove my childhood bullies wrong!" No, they all say "world peace."
I go to movies to be entertained, too... but if I'm sitting next to the wheelchair area, and someone wants my seat so that they can sit next to their friend who is in a wheel chair, then I'm going to give it to them. I wouldn't have gone to the movies for the express purpose of doing good deeds, but if the opportunity presented itself, absolutely I would. I don't really do *ANYTHING* for the express purpose of doing good deeds, but I like to think that I take advantage of the opportunity when it presents itself. That's just, in my mind, part of being a good person.
Of course, I would give up my seat too. Giving up my seat is not a any real cost to my enjoyment.
If you were sitting with your girlfriend/wife at the movies and a couple asked you to give up your seats so they could sit together and you and your wife had to sit across the theatre apart from one another, would you? More appropriate to the comparison of entertainment goals in a game of Diablo.
Yes. What's the reason for high school sports? Why do they exist? What is their purpose? Go to any athletic association, and the answer will *ALWAYS* be something to the effect of "to teach discipline, respect, and sportsmanship". How does running up the score teach respect and sportsmanship? Personally, it looks to me like it does exactly the opposite. As a result, it runs EXACTLY COUNTER to the desires of every high school athletic association, and it makes perfect sense for them to make a rule against it, just like they make rules against intentionally injuring players, or cheating.
But it's not like making rules against intentionally injuring players.
Take hockey for example. Wayne Gretzkey did not play a physical game. He chose to play hockey against other players in the league avoiding physical confrontation, even though the league deems it completely within the rules.
If Ty Domi chooses to play his own physical style of Hockey and attempt to Body check Wayne (within the rules) every opportunity he gets, is he an immoral hockey player? Absolutely not.
Using your logic Ty is forcing Wayne to play a physical style of hockey which he had no intentions of playing when he joined the game despite knowing that it was apart of the game. Should Ty Domi avoid checking Wayne and only check the other physical players on the ice? Crazy to suggest something like that.
I'm gonna end there cuz i really like that last hockey analogy as i think it fits best out of anything i've said so far :)
I believe in universal moral truths. I believe slavery is never right, whether it's condoned by society or not. Like I said before, Rules != Right.
Oh yes, slavery is not right... and murder is wrong... and a game is a game, and taking it too seriously is a bad idea ;)
Newsflash: Not everyone is like you. Not everyone feels the way you do about everything. You should respect how people actually feel, not how you might feel if you were them.
Err, friend, I am them. I have red hair, am a tad too heavy according to current standards, and have been bullied sincI was 4, untill the age of 16. I am fully aware that not everyone is capable of making the distinction that PK's are part of this game and that the game is just a game. That is why I always give fair warning before I attack.
I'm not arguing to convince you. I've already accepted the fact that you're immoral scum whose sole purpose in life is to loot and pillage at will completely mindless of the consequences of your actions. I'm arguing to convince that lurker who's on the fence and not participating.:smiley:
(Edit: in case it's not immediately obvious, that whole "immoral scum" thing was a joke.:wink3: )
Good luck. I've convinced about 100 people to take the Dark Side so far, if not more, and I'm not counting the Lurkers :) I managed to draw 60% of GAT-europe over to the dark side at one point. Sith? Wussies! :sunny:
And that is your opinion. I'm sure you have a University degree which qualifies you to pass said judgements?
"fun/[i]challenge[/]/distraction"
If you are doing something for a challenge then are you not trying to accomplish a task and therefore pursuing mastery?
mastery
n 1: great skillfulness and knowledge of some subject or activity; "a good command of French" [syn: command, control]
2: power to dominate or defeat; "mastery of the seas"
#2 can refer to defeating other people or defeating Baal in hell mode.
You said that you like others believe that you should be able to choose where danger comes from. Unfortunately as has been repeatedly stated in this thread, Blizzard does not agree with you. Mousey's whole argument is that you chose where the danger comes from the moment you bought the game.
It is ridiculous to claim that every gamer has the same goals and when you base your argument on a generalization, expect an objection.
You will have to explain the connection between seeking a challenge and pursuing mastery, as I do not see it. How do you get from wanting an increased risk to lusting for power?
As with the other poster, I strongly disagree with the decision Blizzard made...and your statement is not entirely accurate, as I can always play private or softcore games. Of course, you meant to say "from the moment you join a public hardcore game" but I would not call that choosing to fight others(accepting the possibility of being ambushed is NOT the same thing) as my only goal is a tougher challenge from the computer--one which puts more at stake. This is what I seek and an option to reject hostility would not interfere with this goal at all. I certainly do not choose PK-ers as my source of danger--they thrust themselves upon me...or they would, if I let them. Do you choose to be attacked by mosquitos? Furthermore, if it were possible, would you not prefer that there be an option to make them unable to bother you? Bug spray sadly often does not do the trick.
The thing I still cannot fathom is why anyone would be dissatisfied if only the unwilling targets disappeared. Then again, I do not share the desire to kill animals for sport that some primi...people have--to me, there is no moral justification for unnecessarily ending a life. Obviously, this is just a game...but I very much dislike the fact that people with such a mentality even exist. Nothing personal, of course! :wink3:
I certainly do not choose PK-ers as my source of danger--
And THAT is where the problem really lies. When playing Hardcore, non-passworded on closed battlenet, one chooses to let anyone into ones game, including PK-ers. One know this option exists, yet one nilly willy choose to ignore this, call pk-ers mean, and ignore the fact that one let them into their games themselves.
Come on people, it is not that hard. Make the distinction that Diablo II is a game, that you do not own any items as its all stored on a remote server belonging to Blizzard, that games aren't meant to last forever, and that you can win and loose, to both players and monsters.
:rolleyes:
Lol. Good one Bongo... don't make me laugh at work :laugh:
I was looking through some old stuff today and I came across this. It gave me a real chuckle.
"With our current client-server architecture, I highly doubt that
such hacks will ever be made. However, in the unlikely and
regrettable event that item hacks, dupes, autokills, or the like
do happen, and are not immediatly fixable, we would obviously
consider further and adequate PK protections."
Max Schaefer
VP Blizzard North
6/19/00
LMFAO!!!
The only PKer that should piss anyone off is the illegit one.
I for one have sat on this forum and argued the aspects of the PK when for the most part they never really bothered me they just always killed people I knew that were not so aware of thier surroundings.
Of all the people to call names, Baranor isnt the one! Although he might have more blood on his paws then any legit PK and might rival the amounts of blood of many illegits you wont find the big ole bear looking for an exploit or hack to do it, and 80-90% of the time you will also find him doing it with junk gear, maybe no charms and on equvilant levels or at a disadvantage of levels.
However much you might dislike PKs lay off the "legits" they arent your problem, its the illegits that are the problem.
PK is part of the game.......fact.......you must adapt.
Lag is part of the game.....fact.......you must adapt.
Disconnects.....Enchant explosions......etc
If a "legit" PK kills you then you were not paying attention, and "not paying attention" kills HC players every day.
Hp_Sauce
04-08-2006, 16:23
*head explodes*
Nice, now I have to clean the carpet, thanks guys.
Side A: Pking is fine, TPPK is wrong.
Side B: Pking is flawed, TPPK is wrong.
Side C: 1337 haxxor~~! I TPPKed you!
Please note:
1) None of the 3 sides completely agree on anything.
2) None of the 3 sides have the power to change what they don't agree with.
3) None of the 3 sides have the power to change the other sides opinions
4) All 3 of the sides have the ability to not come into contact with which ever 2 sides they are not, if they so choose.
You guys are umm... "closing the barn door after the horses have bolted." or "Giving CPR to an already dead person." I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you aren't going to change peoples opinions by writing page long posts. Why not let each have their opinion and let it alone?
-hps
That's exactly the point. Sometimes you're so clearly superior to the other team that no matter what you try, you'll wind up beating them around. Running up the score against a clearly outmatched opponent is just bad sportsmanship. If you're up by 49 points, then take a knee and end the game.
If you're up by 49 points after the 1st half, every offensive possession take a knee throughout the ENTIRE 2nd half?
What kind of message do you think that sends? To me, if a team did that I'd be MORE humiliated/embarrassed. I think...no I know, that when a team is utterly destroyed they start playing with a new vigor to not have that happen to them again.
I think it's clear by this point of yours you haven't played any truely competitive sports.
*The other team QUIT PLAYING HALF WAY THROUGH THE GAME* and you think that's better sportsmanship than continuing to play with less of a chance to score by running the ball and letting the play clock run all the way down??? That's truely absurd.
This infuriates me in such a way I can't even describe it in words.
Legit is good
illegit dont count so thier opinion is crap! Illegit doesnt even count as a side, shouldnt even be recognized as anyhting but a cheater. They dont gain PKs, a real "legit" Pker does.
And THAT is where the problem really lies. When playing Hardcore, non-passworded on closed battlenet, one chooses to let anyone into ones game, including PK-ers. One know this option exists, yet one nilly willy choose to ignore this, call pk-ers mean, and ignore the fact that one let them into their games themselves.
Come on people, it is not that hard. Make the distinction that Diablo II is a game, that you do not own any items as its all stored on a remote server belonging to Blizzard, that games aren't meant to last forever, and that you can win and loose, to both players and monsters.
:rolleyes:
I understand that it's a game. That's a pretty flimsy arguement to me. If your mom came downstairs and found you picking on your little brother and making him cry and you said "Aww mom, we're just playing around", I don't think that arguement would fly with her, either.
Game or not, Diablo II is a place where people interact, and when people interact, common courtesies should be observed.
If you're up by 49 points after the 1st half, every offensive possession take a knee throughout the ENTIRE 2nd half?
What kind of message do you think that sends? To me, if a team did that I'd be MORE humiliated/embarrassed. I think...no I know, that when a team is utterly destroyed they start playing with a new vigor to not have that happen to them again.
To be honest, I wouldn't think that taking an knee could possibly be any more embarassing than putting in 3rd stringers and still scoring 30 more points. At a certain point, it's clear that you're just outclassed.
Besides, the lesson isn't pointed at the losing team. At that point, no matter what happens, the losing team is going to be pretty darn humiliated. The lesson is pointed at the WINNING team.
I think it's clear by this point of yours you haven't played any truely competitive sports.
I think it's clear by this point of yours that you don't know the very first thing about me.
*The other team QUIT PLAYING HALF WAY THROUGH THE GAME* and you think that's better sportsmanship than continuing to play with less of a chance to score by running the ball and letting the play clock run all the way down??? That's truely absurd.
This infuriates me in such a way I can't even describe it in words.
Yes. I think when a team says "it's clear we've won, and there's no need to drag this out or continue this beating", that shows more class than saying "it's clear we've won, but just to reinforce our point, we're going to send our 3rd stringers out. You can't stop them, either".
And you're looking at it all wrong, too. In your scenario, a team dominates its way to a 49 point lead, and then just takes a knee for the rest of the game. A more realistic scenario would be that a team dominates its way to a 28 point lead, and then puts in its second string and gets to a 42 point lead, and then puts in its 3rd string and gets to a 49 point lead, and then just mercifully ends the game. I mean, there's no rule that says you have to try your absolute hardest until you have a 50 point lead, and then just quit entirely. That's why the margin- 50 points- is so high. You can easily build a 30 point lead and ease off the gas and continue playing until the final gun. Or you can build a 49 point lead and then slam on the brakes. I agree that the second method would be pretty insulting... but I think the 1st method would be far preferable to building a 49 point lead with the first team and then continuing to build on that lead with the 3rd string.
And THAT is where the problem really lies. When playing Hardcore, non-passworded on closed battlenet, one chooses to let anyone into ones game, including PK-ers. One know this option exists, yet one nilly willy choose to ignore this, call pk-ers mean, and ignore the fact that one let them into their games themselves.
:rolleyes:
No, we would like to choose to ignore them. What's wrong with having the option? Don't bother replying if you're planning to repeat "rules are rules"--I'm asking for the rationale.
I mean, there's no rule that says you have to try your absolute hardest until you have a 50 point lead, and then just quit entirely. That's why the margin- 50 points- is so high. You can easily build a 30 point lead and ease off the gas and continue playing until the final gun. Or you can build a 49 point lead and then slam on the brakes. I agree that the second method would be pretty insulting... but I think the 1st method would be far preferable to building a 49 point lead with the first team and then continuing to build on that lead with the 3rd string.
You're right, I don't know the first thing about you, other than you did make several good arguments against PK.
But, once again if you've played any competitive sports. You should KNOW it's impossible to not try your absolute hardest, unless you're not playing competitively.
This really is the most absurd thing ever. I'm done here.
You're right, I don't know the first thing about you, other than you did make several good arguments against PK.
But, once again if you've played any competitive sports. You should KNOW it's impossible to not try your absolute hardest, unless you're not playing competitively.
This really is the most absurd thing ever. I'm done here.
Oh sure, I completely agree that players should always run called plays to the best of their ability, give 110% effort, and all that jazz. That's why I think the burden is on the coach to send out sub-optimal personnel packages and call sub-optimal plays (such as, in extreme cases, taking a knee). The PLAYERS aren't getting suspended for running up the score- they didn't do anything wrong, only tried their hardest like they were taught (and should have been taught) to do. The COACHES are getting suspended.
A coach should never ever ever tell his RB "Okay, take this handoff, but only run half-heartedly". He should, however, tell his team "Alright, we're up by 28, third string from here on out" or even "We've proven our point, let's just take a knee and get this over with".
BongoFury
06-08-2006, 05:18
He should, however, tell his team "Alright, we're up by 28, third string from here on out" or even "We've proven our point, let's just take a knee and get this over with".That's why nearly every non professional baseball/softball league/organization has a 'mercy' rule. If you're up by 9-10 runs after a certain point the game is over. Below the professional level, sportmanship is as or more important than competitiveness. So this football rule you're talking about is not out of line with the baseball 'mercy' rule. It's sad that you need such rules, that some people place such a high value on competition that they lose track of sportmanship. But that's the way the world is today, often people can't see beyond their own self interests.
That's why nearly every non professional baseball/softball league/organization has a 'mercy' rule. If you're up by 9-10 runs after a certain point the game is over. Below the professional level, sportmanship is as or more important than competitiveness. So this football rule you're talking about is not out of line with the baseball 'mercy' rule. It's sad that you need such rules, that some people place such a high value on competition that they lose track of sportmanship. But that's the way the world is today, often people can't see beyond their own self interests.
It's actually great that you bring up the Mercy Rule, because I had forgotten about that, but I think it's a great comparison. Nobody has any problem at all with the Mercy Rule, even though it's basically the same thing as this "50 point margin" rule. Sure, perhaps Connecticut could have made it easier by just saying "If a team is ever up by 50, it automatically wins", but the principal behind the two is the same... and maybe it's just me, but I don't know anyone who has a problem with the Mercy Rule.
It's actually great that you bring up the Mercy Rule, because I had forgotten about that, but I think it's a great comparison. Nobody has any problem at all with the Mercy Rule, even though it's basically the same thing as this "50 point margin" rule. Sure, perhaps Connecticut could have made it easier by just saying "If a team is ever up by 50, it automatically wins", but the principal behind the two is the same... and maybe it's just me, but I don't know anyone who has a problem with the Mercy Rule.
As a level 3 umpire, a level 2 coach, and a top level competitor for 14 years of baseball the rule is there as much for the interest of time as anything else.
The mercy rule is instituted after a certain amount of innings. If one team were to score 150 runs in the first two innings they would be entirely within their right to score another 150 runs in the third inning before "mercy" would be declared. Imagine losing a baseball game 300 - 0 and say "well at least they showed us mercy after the 4th inning."
If you've ever played in a game (or god forbid umpired one), where the mercy rule is in effect, you'll realize that after the typical 4 1/2 innings required to play to institute the rule, as much time has passed as a competitive 7 or 9 inning game depending on the level you are playing. If the game was left to continue at the pace it is being played without the mercy rule, to complete the game would interfer with many of the double header evening games schedules by the league.
Diablo in effect (right "effect"?), has an inverse mercy rule, giving the party 10 seconds grace period before they are in danger via a WP.
I hear your point about this 50 score thing but I could never coach a competitive team to kneel on the ball with any significant amount of time left in the game.
Practice new plays and formations, use players who otherwise never get to play, try players in new positions, let the players run the plays or do simple I-dives up the middle for 2 yards a pop, but kneeling on the ball is as bad as anything else in my opinion.
No, we would like to choose to ignore them. What's wrong with having the option? Don't bother replying if you're planning to repeat "rules are rules"--I'm asking for the rationale.
Nothing. If the non-consensual PvP option was disabled tomorrow, I'd be fine with it. But it won't be.
I understand that it's a game. That's a pretty flimsy arguement to me. If your mom came downstairs and found you picking on your little brother and making him cry and you said "Aww mom, we're just playing around", I don't think that arguement would fly with her, either.
Game or not, Diablo II is a place where people interact, and when people interact, common courtesies should be observed.
Stupid argument. I am not doing something which is not allowed by a law dictated by someone above me. You are comparing apples to oranges. If we were to play soccer, and I would make a perfit legitimate sliding (a good tackle, with ball and all), knocking both the ball and you to the ground, and you would complain to the referee, what would you feel? Silly, that's right, because I was playing by the book. It might not be all that courteous to drop someone with a sliding, but provided it is done with care there is nothing wrong with it. Making slidings, although not always nice or polite, is an option within the game. According to common curtesy as you dictate, I should lay off the slidings and let you get away.
I don't think so. If you do not wish to be tackled, don't play soccer! That's why I quit with it. It wasn't good for my legs, knees, ankles, everything. If you do not wish to be pk-ed, do not play closed realm non-passworded hardcore Diablo II.
Bullying is wrong. Yes, pk-ing offers a lot of room for bullying, but without pk assholes will still be on bnet. I'm not one of them. Never was, never will be. I pk, but I don't bully. Comparing a pk to a bully is wrong. I agree that there are plenty of pk's out there that are just ****ing morons. I dislike those too. A pk-er should respect his quarry as much as he respects himself, and act like it. Nno name calling. No insults. And most definately, act with honor, dignity and style.
ZappaFan
07-08-2006, 01:18
Good grief, PK'ing is part of the game. It's designed into the game by the game makers. If a person dosn't like the way blizzard designed the game then perhaps they are playing the wrong game!. It's absolutely pointless to come on here and put forth an argument that Blizzard designed the game wrong. They made the game the way they wanted to make it, end of story. PK'ing was never for me when I played, and when I got PK'd legitimately, without the use of hacks or bug exploitation, I didn't like it - I'd go so far as to even say it made me mad - very mad! But you choose to cross a busy street and you're going to be taking your chances. That's the way it goes. End of story.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.