An idea to stop unnecessary PK [Archive] - Diablo 3 & Diablo 2 Forums

visom

21-07-2008, 17:02

(Lovers of PK, don't read)

People can sometimes just join your game just to harrass you so...

Why not make a "level" for equipments. The stronger the equipment, the higher it's level is (level is capped at 10).

Like say FOR EXAMPLE enigma, SoJ, and shako is rank 10.
Tal set is rank 8
Sig set is rank 5
And all the other common sets and rares are rank 4 and below.
(please don't argue with my weapon ranking, i just took an estimate)

The "prevent pk" system automatically decides if the equipment the PK'ers using is appropriate by matching it up with his opponent's own equipments by comparing both's weapon, both's armor, and so forth. However it won't compare and will automatically reject if someone removes an equipment (in hopes of being able to cheat the system) or changes their equipment during battle or the process. The equipment you have during the selection process is the one you must duel with, or else be rejected. If it does, then PK'ing is allowed. Unless of course, his opponent accepts a challenge (against all odds) then the fight is allowed.

However, the host can choose whether to have this option on or not by creating a game.

I for one, do not like PK. I was in the middle of doing a quest with 5people in my party, and some nut just jumped into the game and PK'ed us all, and im sure it happened to many others as well.

Of course level matters too, you can't just be a naked lvl 99 and be allowed to pk a level 1

HeroQuest

21-07-2008, 17:11

However, if you have x amount of fluff in your bellybutton, you can pk anyone.

cbr

21-07-2008, 18:15

And how do you decide which armor or weapon or whatever is better? There is no way to compare a wand to a sword, or a mage armor to a melee armor. Stupid suggestion that could never work.

visom

22-07-2008, 00:36

And how do you decide which armor or weapon or whatever is better? There is no way to compare a wand to a sword, or a mage armor to a melee armor. Stupid suggestion that could never work.

Haha....ok lets see...

Boneshade vs rixot's keen

Link to boneshade want
http://www.battle.net/diablo2exp/items/elite/uwands.shtml

link to rixot's keen
http://www.battle.net/diablo2exp/items/normal/uswords.shtml

As you can see, it's very possible to tell. Anyways how long have you been playing D2? You should know that damage from a wand/staff doesn't mean anything, it's the bonuses that they add. Compare a 1-2damage wand that adds 5to all skills, with an sword that does 100-200 damage that adds 1 to all skill, it's obviously that the wand is better.

Compare a mage's armor with a melee armor? Rofl

A mage's armor is light, giving it a point
It also gives special bonuses to magic skills, giving it a point

A melee's armor is strong, giving it a point
It also gives special bonuses to melee skills, giving it a point

So as you can see, all weapons have their specific advantages. Do you obviously think that damage and defense means everything? No, it's also the bonuses

cbr

22-07-2008, 00:48

Gigashadow

22-07-2008, 00:54

I don't see how this comparison system is going to work... it needs to be highly complicated to work. I also think it's pretty pointless. People with PvP builds would still be able to PK those with PvM builds. People who can defeat a PK may not necessary want to do that - maybe they were busy with something else and a PKer came over to ruin their fun.

Either remove PK or leave it.

HappyAssassin

22-07-2008, 02:09

There's no way this would work. Besides the already mentioned issues, some items are awesome for PK but silly for PvE, and vice-versa, so you'd need to have at least a few months of people devising builds before you could even get the system off the ground.

mephiztophelez

22-07-2008, 03:07

i think this is just far too complicated a system to be workable.

much better to have hostility timers or use some of the other methods suggested.

visom

22-07-2008, 04:47

What I see is that you lack basic knowledge about pking, or the game in general. You might want to get to know them both before making suggestions. Thanks for trying though.

Also notice that the wand in your example has a lvl req of 79 while the sword can be used by a lvl 9. So anybody that uses that wand shouldn't be able to enter your games anyway since you can just set a level restriction and considering there are 70 level difference I'd say that's a pretty generous level restriction.

Ok, please point what knowledge I'm lacking instead of leaving it blank.

Also I intentionally took those 2 weapons because I know it's unfair, just to prove my point, and that point is weapons CAN be rated with levels by how powerful they are. You said "you can't compare a wand and a sword", and now you replied with "Also notice that the wand in your example has a lvl req of 79 while the sword can be used by a lvl 9", you just pretty much admitted that those two weapons CAN be compared.

Oh, and 1 more thing...level restriction? I'm not talking about banning certain people from a room, I'm talking about BANNING CERTAIN PK'ers while they're in a room. What if someone with very powerful equipment for their level just enters the room and wrecks havoc? What if level restriction's aren't enough?
Lets say you don't want PK'ers, but you're level 80 and you need to do a quest, you have to expect a few people in their 90s to join the game as well. Just because they're around your level, that doesn't make them about your strength, there is HUGE gap between levels and equipments.

cbr

22-07-2008, 09:09

Ok, please point what knowledge I'm lacking instead of leaving it blank.

The tpe of equipment PKers use.

Also I intentionally took those 2 weapons because I know it's unfair, just to prove my point, and that point is weapons CAN be rated with levels by how powerful they are. You said "you can't compare a wand and a sword", and now you replied with "Also notice that the wand in your example has a lvl req of 79 while the sword can be used by a lvl 9", you just pretty much admitted that those two weapons CAN be compared.

I didn't say they can be compared, they just have other different level restrictions. If I wanted to PK with that wand in low level pk, I couldn't, but I could with the sword so we get that the sword is more useful than the wand, funny how that works no?

Oh, and 1 more thing...level restriction? I'm not talking about banning certain people from a room, I'm talking about BANNING CERTAIN PK'ers while they're in a room. What if someone with very powerful equipment for their level just enters the room and wrecks havoc? What if level restriction's aren't enough?

Learn to make password games.

Lets say you don't want PK'ers, but you're level 80 and you need to do a quest, you have to expect a few people in their 90s to join the game as well. Just because they're around your level, that doesn't make them about your strength, there is HUGE gap between levels and equipments.

You need to do quests with level 80 characters in public games? Whatever you say, since the game protects you anyway, the others won't know where you are if you don't give them party, also you can only be hostiled in town, I think that gives you enough time to TP to town.

By the way mind telling me which is more powerful from the following items, +3 fire circlet or shako? +3 fire amulet or maras? white lvl9 claw with damage jewels or a low level unique? damage armor for low level or similar level unique? Blue orb with lots of fire skills or hoto?

It's clear to me that you don't know what equipment PKs use, there is no way to quantify how good the equipment is since for the most part it's only good for PK, but not good at all for PvM or anything else outside PK.

visom

22-07-2008, 17:41

The tpe of equipment PKers use.

I didn't say they can be compared, they just have other different level restrictions. If I wanted to PK with that wand in low level pk, I couldn't, but I could with the sword so we get that the sword is more useful than the wand, funny how that works no?

I'm not talking about "how long that weap is for its level", I'm talking about how strong it is from the entire game

Learn to make password games.

you should know that the point of making a game for help on an act is well.....finding help on an act, you need to attract people to your game

if you make a password, you'll pretty much be all alone, and some people don't have their friends playing D2

the only way that making passwords would help, is to whisper everyone about your strength your game room password, and hoping they'd write it down for later use, which is highly doubtful

You need to do quests with level 80 characters in public games? Whatever you say, since the game protects you anyway, the others won't know where you are if you don't give them party, also you can only be hostiled in town, I think that gives you enough time to TP to town.

I've seen some donkeys that goes hostile and teleported to baal (with help from MH) within minutes, and killed my party, having a hostile player in a room can make others feel tense, and give them an urge to leave the game room

By the way mind telling me which is more powerful from the following items, +3 fire circlet or shako? +3 fire amulet or maras? white lvl9 claw with damage jewels or a low level unique? damage armor for low level or similar level unique? Blue orb with lots of fire skills or hoto?

Honestly (I'm serious, not trying to chicken out) I haven't played D2 in 2years so hope you don't mind if I use some help from arreat summit to remember item effects.

+3 fire circlet...is that all it's going to do? Then I would say overall the shako is better.

+3 fire ammy or maras...3fire ammy would be a slightly better choice for dueling sorcs, but I prefer maras since it's helpful to other classes as well not just the sorc and it does provide extra resistance. So I would say maras is better overall

white lvl 9 claw with damage jewels is better than (lets say the unique is a gul) in the short run, but you'd want a gul later on for MF'ing

And please evaluate on what "alot of fire skills", don't be so vague

It's clear to me that you don't know what equipment PKs use, there is no way to quantify how good the equipment is since for the most part it's only good for PK, but not good at all for PvM or anything else outside PK.

Equipments that PK'er use? Ok I gotta divide that up...since not all PK'ers use same equips.
Equipments that sorc PK'er use, I'm not too sure on that since I have my sorc for MF'ing purposes. I just know that fire sorcs are recommended for PK but most people I know. But I am assuming the sorc uses fort for PK, that's all that I know of

I've never made a PK barb.

As for druid, I'd use an enigma and hurricane. I would use anything to increase elemental power. But like I said I've forgotten the equipments I use a long time ago. Right Now I'm like looking at arreat summit just to remember what maras do, what hoto do and so forth.

PK'ers fill up their entire inventory with large +1 all X skills charm, and also fill up their inventory with small charms that adds stats or cast rate

Besides I was never aiming towards being a PvP'er, I spent most of my time on D2 MF'ing and doing forge to recover from my loses after a server disconnection made me lose my enigma, fort, shako, spider sash, and more.

cbr

22-07-2008, 17:52

Gigashadow

23-07-2008, 02:09

cbr

23-07-2008, 02:47

This seems to be the same exact discussion they had on Diablofans...

cbr, saying "you have no clue about PK" doesn't really help in a conversation. I don't think anyone who's not a PK'er would have a clue... so you are one of those PK'er gits?

PKer gits? Intresting ... no I'm not one of those PKer gits, I was a PKer though and let me tell you there is nothing sweeter than to pick up the ear of a character 20 levels higher than yours.

If you were on Europe and on HC, chances are you saw me at least once in your game.

I find that "You have no clue about PK" to be quite valid when one makes a suggestion about equipment ranking of ... you guessed it ... PKs. How could anyone clain to know how you should rank equipment for PK when you barely know what builds are even viable for PK, let alone the equipment for them. That's like me going to CERN and telling them how they should your the Large Hadron Collider, while saying I admit I know nothing of high level physics.

visom

23-07-2008, 02:54

So what you're saying is ... you have no clue about PKer equipment or other equipment in general but you think you can rank them? Your suggestion is completely unworkable and absurd. You can't even say if maras is better than a +3 fire amulet since the logical question is "Good for what?" If the answer is PK than +3fire amu is better than mara's for a PK fire sorc any day, if the answer is PvM than mara's is ahead by leaps and bounds.

How good your equipment is depends solely on what build you're making, not the other way around.

Ok you're half right on the part where I have no clue about PKer, since I'm not a PK'er although I do PvP sometimes just for the fun of it, however I have played D2 for along time and I do know what's good and what's not, and what's good is generally helps you decide on what to use for PvP.

I did say maras is better overall...have I ever at one point mentioned ranking weapons just for PvP? No I did not. I meant overall ranking, PvP, PvM, PvB. That is why I chose maras over the fire ammy, because its good for PvM, PvB, and decent for PvP.

Gigashadow

23-07-2008, 06:51

and let me tell you there is nothing sweeter than to pick up the ear of a character 20 levels higher than yours.Yeah, sure, nothing sweeter than to steal a bike from a kid, eh?

I never saw you anywhere besides a couple forums, thank you very much. And I hope you stay away from my games as far as possible. Your general attitude is extremely negative and harmful.

cbr

23-07-2008, 09:04

I did say maras is better overall...have I ever at one point mentioned ranking weapons just for PvP? No I did not. I meant overall ranking, PvP, PvM, PvB. That is why I chose maras over the fire ammy, because its good for PvM, PvB, and decent for PvP.

Yet it's no where being as good as +3 fire amuler for PK and that's my point.

Yeah, sure, nothing sweeter than to steal a bike from a kid, eh?

Yeah, clearly the same thing.

I never saw you anywhere besides a couple forums, thank you very much. And I hope you stay away from my games as far as possible. Your general attitude is extremely negative and harmful.

And I find your attitude is the kind that kills games, but I welcome you into my games, if I were still playing that is.

HappyAssassin

23-07-2008, 18:19

The only difference between a PKer and his target (assuming a similar level) is that the PK is generally better at Diablo than the target. Do you complain in shooter games when someone more skilled than you kills you? You're on even terms after all, you have the same access to weaponry and items. The same is true in Diablo, it just takes longer to acquire the good gear. Level restrictions are NOT indicative of an item's power, sure some high level uniques have high level reqs, but it's possible to make a character that can PK higher level opponents at just about any level cap, notably 9, 30, 49 and 79. Even if you ban characters with high level equipment from PKing other characters without the same gear, people will just make lower level PKers that are just as dangerous. In fact, many PKers deliberately use lower level characters because its humiliating from high level, crappy players when they lose to them. The high level guys fling hack accusations and can't fathom how a lowly level 30 is killing their "godly" level 80. The real solution to PK is to learn to deal with it in game. If you're bad at the game and someone kills you, that's your problem. You have no one to blame but yourself if you die to a legit PKer, either you played poorly or your character wasn't good enough. Diablo is a game about building a powerful character. What's the point of investing the time required to do that if you can't prove it against others? "I can kill monsters faster than you," gets old very quickly.

phool

23-07-2008, 19:58

There is no way the game could possibly rank how good items are against each other, which, as cbr has been trying to say, you would know if you knew more about pk and D2 in general. Comparisons like 3 ruby hat vs tarnhelm, principle vs twitchthroe, 6 shael pb vs famine vs death cleaver? Look how badly they've done with item costs.

The only difference between a PKer and his target (assuming a similar level) is that the PK is generally better at Diablo than the target.

The PK is generally equipped for PKing, the PK'd for pvm. Or if both a low level, the PK'd may not have been equipped at all. Then again, if they've stuck around to be PK'd with clearly hopeless equipment they suck anyway.

Gigashadow

23-07-2008, 19:59

The only difference between a PKer and his target (assuming a similar level) is that the PK is generally better at Diablo than the target.Oh, please. You have higher level, a PK build, better items, and you go kill me level 13 who is playing on Normal with items found on Normal without farming. Even if you don't have a higher level, you still most probably have better gear, since I despise farming and never do it. Which one of us plays this game better will never be known since DII has no organized duel system.

Do you complain in shooter games when someone more skilled than you kills you?Excuse me, shooter games are usually PvP on agreement. Diablo is not, it's PvE, with PK dorks coming in destroying games and making everybody save and exist. Shooters are made for PvP specifically, just as PvP based rooms. Diablo seems to try to mix those in.

You're on even terms after all, you have the same access to weaponry and items.How can I possibly be on even terms? I DONT FARM. I am on a PvM build. Sometimes I even do weird hybrid builds because that's what I like to do. It's nowhere near even, nor does it make any sense.

If you want to play a game of skill, you have to go play on an even PvP ground. Otherwise, you are... cheating. Yep, yep.

If you're bad at the game and someone kills you, that's your problem.You can't be good or bad in Diablo II. You can just be more lucky, or less lucky, more of a grinder, less of a grinder. I am sure I can smash half of those PK'ers in Nox, because that game requires real skill. What does DII require? Forfeit your life? Play DII instead of going to school? Play DII instead of working? That's the whole difference between a person with good items and a person with bad/average items. Play time.

What's the point of investing the time required to do that if you can't prove it against others? "I can kill monsters faster than you," gets old very quickly.I don't know, roleplaying? I guess that's something PK'ers never found out about. I don't have an Alpha Male (or should I say, female) complex. I have no wish to be better than someone else. If I play a game, I want to have fun. PK'ers do not add to the fun. There is nothing you can say here but disagree. Some people like PK, some don't, and it has hardly anything to do with skill.

visom

23-07-2008, 23:01

I do believe that you could rank items.

Look, each effect with increase an item's rank... lets say you have a:

helm with 100HP, its lvl is 2 because it adds 100, if that helm adds 200HP, then its lvl3

if the helm adds 100HP and it gives 50MP, then its ranked 3 as well

if the helm doesnt add hp/mp but it does give 1 to all skills, then its ranked 3

depending on the effect and how much of it the item provides, it CAN be ranked

You're basically leveling up your item if you add gems or jewels in it. But it has to gain a certain amount of effects before ranking up.

Arkansaw

24-07-2008, 12:52

I thought the equipment of majority of pkers out now happens to be some hack or another? And the sorceresses that kill by their skills? Maybe PK itself is unnecessary so let's banish it altogether

cbr

24-07-2008, 12:54

I thought the equipment of majority of pkers out now happens to be some hack or another?

Lawl? While I admit I haven't played D2 in over a year and a half somehow I doubt that. Unless you're talking about Open Bnet, in which case what do you expect?

Maybe PK itself is unnecessary so let's banish it altogether

Or better yet lets keep it unchanged.

Arkansaw

24-07-2008, 13:01

Lawl? While I admit I haven't played D2 in over a year and a half somehow I doubt that. Unless you're talking about Open Bnet, in which case what do you expect?

Er, then why is TPPK such a perennial problem? Very few pple seem to be complaining about the occasional 'legit' PK or two

cbr

24-07-2008, 13:03

Er, then why is TPPK such a perennial problem? Very few pple seem to be complaining about the occasional 'legit' PK or two

You were talking about hacked equipment, TPPK isn't one. Please don't confuse and muddle the issues. TPPK needs to be fixed no doubt, but that has nothing to do with how PK chars are dressed.

Arkansaw

24-07-2008, 13:20

You were talking about hacked equipment, TPPK isn't one. Please don't confuse and muddle the issues. TPPK needs to be fixed no doubt, but that has nothing to do with how PK chars are dressed.

I never said anything about dressing, in fact that's hardly relevant in practice. *Equipment means equipment*. It's what they have at their disposal that makes PK viable to them.

cbr

24-07-2008, 13:29

I never said anything about dressing, in fact that's hardly relevant in practice. *Equipment means equipment*. It's what they have at their disposal that makes PK viable to them.

So why are you here confusing the issues? This thread is about that guys suggestion, not about TPPK. Please go take your PK/TPPK rants in another thread.

Uncle_Mike

24-07-2008, 14:05

So why are you here confusing the issues? This thread is about that guys suggestion, not about TPPK. Please go take your PK/TPPK rants in another thread.

Please report posts that you consider to be irrelevant rants :thumbup:

Arkansaw

24-07-2008, 14:51

I'm not confusing the issues, just pointing out the futility when the 'equipment' doesn't make a difference

Sein Schatten

24-07-2008, 15:08

There is no way the game could possibly rank how good items are against each other

Actually, it can. With a system like WoW it is possible to have a decent way to compare items. It doesn't need to be foolproof or working all the time flawlessly. Every system has flaws. But at least you can say someone in greys is no match to someone in epixxx. Of course, if a caster uses melee epix the system will still rank that caster high.

phool

24-07-2008, 15:28

Such a system would need to be near foolproof or it's no use at all. If it was constantly patched manually on an item by item basis (very unrealistic) it could probably be done, but even then it would be absurdly complex due the strength of a given item varying wildly depending on its context of use. Seriously, how can you compare fcr with + skills or frw with +mana? Frosties basically suck... unless you're an ES sorc.

Sein Schatten

24-07-2008, 15:35

The point of the system is, if I understand the OP correct, to fight epix against epix, magicals against magicals, greys against greys and so on. Equal item levels fighting each other and not some decked out in uniques battleing a newbie.
http://www.wowwiki.com/Item_level

phool

24-07-2008, 16:01

D2 ilvls are a near useless point of comparison. A soj's ilvl can be anywhere from 99 to around 30. Some greys/blues are better than the best RWs/uniques, for some builds, also a poor point of comparison. Qlvl doesn't work either though it would be of some use for sets/uniques. I don't know enough about WoW for that link to mean much to me, so if you can explain how it deals with issues such as +max being far better than %ed on a fast, low damage weapon, or +mana being of very little use for most builds but potentially broken on an ES please do. As far as I know WoW's range of affixes is far more simplistic than D2's.

HappyAssassin

24-07-2008, 22:21

Excuse me, shooter games are usually PvP on agreement. Diablo is not, it's PvE, with PK dorks coming in destroying games and making everybody save and exist. Shooters are made for PvP specifically, just as PvP based rooms. Diablo seems to try to mix those in.

How can I possibly be on even terms? I DONT FARM. I am on a PvM build. Sometimes I even do weird hybrid builds because that's what I like to do. It's nowhere near even, nor does it make any sense.

If you want to play a game of skill, you have to go play on an even PvP ground. Otherwise, you are... cheating. Yep, yep.

You can't be good or bad in Diablo II. You can just be more lucky, or less lucky, more of a grinder, less of a grinder.

PK'ers do not add to the fun. There is nothing you can say here but disagree. Some people like PK, some don't, and it has hardly anything to do with skill.

You're missing the point. Diablo 2 is no less PvP than Counterstrike. There's nothing about D2 that implies it's PvE. There's a hostile button in the game, therefore anyone can be hostile to anyone else at any time. The game gives you a 9 level cushion to get your act together, after that all bets are off. By playing D2, you're agreeing to participate in a game in which anyone can kill you if they want to. That's been part of the series this whole time. All the grief over PKing is the result of people who don't understand this basic fact about the game. The fact that you need to play a lot to get a powerful character makes it seem "unfair" to those who don't have one, but it's up to you to create your character. You decide your commitment to the game. In any competition, the truly committed contestants tend to win.

I see no good reason for the game to build in protections for you because you're a casual player. If you're a casual baseball player, the rules don't allow you extra strikes because you're bad at hitting. Striking out is less fun that hitting a double, but it's not the game's job to provide you with fun. The game sets the rules and give you the OPPORTUNITY to have fun. Everyone plays by the same rules. If you don't like those rules, don't play the game. You can always feel superior because you spend less time on the game if you want to, just don't get upset when that translates to losing.

The main reason people PK is for the reaction that people like you have. They want to induce you to whine and get angry because you don't like the rules of the game. It's entertaining to them, because they perceive you as a crybaby who think he's special, and they want to show you you're not. PK is no fun when you hostile and everyone just leaves. Believe me, I know.

phool

25-07-2008, 00:31

If you're a casual baseball player, you'll play in a different league to the professionals.

Sein Schatten

25-07-2008, 01:18

Games change. There is a lot of stuff that did not made the transition from D1 to D2. Saying "it was in the game from the beginning" won't work. People don't like it getting their fun disrupted because of "humans" who get their jolly by making other people miserable. Good thing those people are few.

Diablo is for the most(the biggest) part a PvE game. There is not a single valid point to deny that.

Extra protection and altering rules to protect people who play for fun and don't want to get rudely disrupted is bad? What the hell? I think I need to smack myself with a Cactus to wake up. No, of course I won't smack myself with a Cactus. Our cactilian overlords would punish me for violence against cactilians is heresy. So it is written in the book of worshipping cactii written in cactese.
I am Cactaur. Mighty cactus currently planning to destroy Mystical Mouse. Archenemy of all cactilians.

Azymn

25-07-2008, 08:54

Games change. There is a lot of stuff that did not made the transition from D1 to D2. Saying "it was in the game from the beginning" won't work.
Amen. Game design elements shouldn't be grandfathered into a sequel simply for consistency's sake.

HappyAssassin

25-07-2008, 18:26

If you're a casual baseball player, you'll play in a different league to the professionals.

To an extent, maybe sports was not the best example, I was thinking smaller than that (although there is pro-gaming). In intramural football for example, there are teams that only get together for the actual games, and teams that practice regularly. There are teams made up of athletes who keep themselves in good shape, and teams where half the guys are gassed by half-time. Everyone is an amateur, but some people take their preparation more seriously than others. That's the point of the analogy to sports.

People don't like it getting their fun disrupted because of "humans" who get their jolly by making other people miserable. Good thing those people are few.

Extra protection and altering rules to protect people who play for fun and don't want to get rudely disrupted is bad? What the hell? I think I need to smack myself with a Cactus to wake up.

Still, you're missing the point. Your references to "making other people miserable" and "rudely disrupted" imply that a player in Diablo 2 has some right to kill monsters without being bothered, which is not the case. Hostility is part of the game. The idea that PvE players play for fun and PvP players play for something else is just the result of your personal bias towards PvE. It's your idea of fun, but PvP is someone else's.

Diablo is for the most(the biggest) part a PvE game. There is not a single valid point to deny that.

Yep.

Amen. Game design elements shouldn't be grandfathered into a sequel simply for consistency's sake.

When you're talking about a sequel in an immensely popular franchise, consistency matters. Remember the outcry about the art direction on display in the Diablo 3 trailer? Diablo 2 has been cloned so many times that its distinctive elements are very important. Lets not forget, in the first game everyone was hostile all the time (not necessarily aggressive, but they could hurt each other). The party system in D2 was a big step towards cooperative play. Taking it another step and eliminating competition altogether would fundamentally change the game system. I don't think this would be good for the game, especially since it would take it closer to WoW (and everyone knows WoW PvP sucks).

Azymn

26-07-2008, 09:57

When you're talking about a sequel in an immensely popular franchise, consistency matters.
Yes, consistency does matter. But you want to bring elements over because they're decisively core to the game, not simply because it's the way things have been done in the past.

Sein Schatten

26-07-2008, 13:43

Still, you're missing the point. Your references to "making other people miserable" and "rudely disrupted" imply that a player in Diablo 2 has some right to kill monsters without being bothered, which is not the case. Hostility is part of the game. The idea that PvE players play for fun and PvP players play for something else is just the result of your personal bias towards PvE. It's your idea of fun, but PvP is someone else's.

D2 is not advocated as a PvP game. It is a PvE game.
Games are played to kill time and to have fun. PvP without consent is not fun. Guess why D3 is marketed as SP/Coop? Take a look at the WoW realm stats. PvE outnumbers PvP.
Your last sentence: Yes, if both wants PvP, otherwise refer to my previous post and meditate upon it. PvP yes, grieving no. Common sense. I am done with you. :wave:

Neferim

28-07-2008, 07:27

You're missing the point. Diablo 2 is no less PvP than Counterstrike. There's nothing about D2 that implies it's PvE. There's a hostile button in the game, therefore anyone can be hostile to anyone else at any time. The game gives you a 9 level cushion to get your act together, after that all bets are off. By playing D2, you're agreeing to participate in a game in which anyone can kill you if they want to. That's been part of the series this whole time. All the grief over PKing is the result of people who don't understand this basic fact about the game. The fact that you need to play a lot to get a powerful character makes it seem "unfair" to those who don't have one, but it's up to you to create your character. You decide your commitment to the game. In any competition, the truly committed contestants tend to win.

I see no good reason for the game to build in protections for you because you're a casual player. If you're a casual baseball player, the rules don't allow you extra strikes because you're bad at hitting. Striking out is less fun that hitting a double, but it's not the game's job to provide you with fun. The game sets the rules and give you the OPPORTUNITY to have fun. Everyone plays by the same rules. If you don't like those rules, don't play the game. You can always feel superior because you spend less time on the game if you want to, just don't get upset when that translates to losing.

The main reason people PK is for the reaction that people like you have. They want to induce you to whine and get angry because you don't like the rules of the game. It's entertaining to them, because they perceive you as a crybaby who think he's special, and they want to show you you're not. PK is no fun when you hostile and everyone just leaves. Believe me, I know.

Hmm.. I haven't played CS in a while, but I don't remember an extensive and immersive story mode that you can cooperatively play with a party of other players without the necessity of PvP conflict. It seems to me that you are simply ignoring the PvM aspects of Diablo 2. You say it is purely a PvP game and your reasoning is essentially "because that's the way I play it". Just because you ignore the game that Blizzard set up for us PvM players doesn't mean it is nonexistant, so please don't try and convince me that "there's nothing about D2 that implies it's PvE". It's simply untrue.

Here's the thing about your analogy. I can just go down to the park and start up a game of baseball/football/whatever with some friends. Then, maybe if some other people want to join in, whatever. It's a casual game, we're not involved in some huge competition beyond the inherent competition in the game. This would be analgous to the inherent challenge presented in the PvM elements of D2. On the other hand, there is professional sports play, where you go out and acknowledge that you need to do everything you can to win, you're not just messing around anymore. This is analagous of people who try to climb the ladder in D2.

Here's my problem: I am unable to play D2 multiplayer in a casual manner. I am OBLIGATED to go pro, I can't just play in the park. Sure, I can play at home or maybe even invite some friends over, but that's not as much fun as going to the park and meeting those people we didn't know. Inviting them into the game was as much a reason we went to the park as the game itself.

You say "well that's the game you bought", I say "true, but I don't like it, and I don't think D3 should be the same way. I just want to play in the park".

Oh yeah, and a group of players who's main goal is to make other people feel bad and give them grief really shouldn't be catered to. It's destructive, hurtful, and inappropriate behavior. You may say I am taking the game too seriously, but I would argue that you are taking the actions of the real human beings who are playing the game too lightly.

HappyAssassin

29-07-2008, 05:46

You say it is purely a PvP game and your reasoning is essentially "because that's the way I play it". Just because you ignore the game that Blizzard set up for us PvM players doesn't mean it is nonexistant, so please don't try and convince me that "there's nothing about D2 that implies it's PvE". It's simply untrue.

That's not true. Nowhere did I say D2 is a strictly PvP game. I suppose I should have written "strictly PvE," but as far as I'm concerned D2 is both PvP and PvE all the time.

By the way, I'm writing from the perspective of someone who enjoyed D2 the most as an elite dueler in organized play, not a griefing PKer. The reason I'm so adverse to all these "limits" on PK is that I think it will result in limits on real duelers as well as PKer. D2 had by far the best and most entertaining PvP I've every experienced in a video game, and I'd very much like to see something similar in D2. There were all kinds of interesting and unique strategies in PK that I could see being screwed up by tiered gear limits or the creation of distinct PvP realms. Call me paranoid, but when you find a great system you want to preserve it.

I really liked your response though, it had some good points. Being that I was "pro" I guess I have a hard time understanding people who are more casual in game. I do think that the predominance of hacks in D2 has a lot to do with people's hatred of PKers. In an environment without duped runewords (or whites and iths in older patches) or TPPK, I think PK would be seen as a much more honorable and challenging form of game play. I could see it being a lot like LLD pk, where level 30s try to hunt down much higher levels. Anyway, I do think people should be able to "play in the park," I'd just like to see that made possible with a minimum of restrictive rules and I think that item tiers (the subject of this thread) are overly restrictive.

D2 is not advocated as a PvP game. It is a PvE game.
Games are played to kill time and to have fun. PvP without consent is not fun. Guess why D3 is marketed as SP/Coop? Take a look at the WoW realm stats. PvE outnumbers PvP.
Your last sentence: Yes, if both wants PvP, otherwise refer to my previous post and meditate upon it. PvP yes, grieving no. Common sense. I am done with you.

All I've got to say to this is that appeals to common sense are extremely weak arguments. Since this isn't a formal debate or anything (actually, it's forum chat, which is probably the second lowest form of human communication), it's really not that important, but I figure that someone who seems to fancy themselves intelligent and eloquent might want to know that. As for being "done with me," you can of course block my posts. That's about as done with me as you can get on these forums, which isn't very "done."

5zigen

29-07-2008, 18:51

I think the OP's suggestion is an incredibly convoluted compromise which, in the end, wouldn't satisfy either party. Simply removing non consensual pvp would be much, much more effective.

I really liked your response though, it had some good points. Being that I was "pro" I guess I have a hard time understanding people who are more casual in game. I do think that the predominance of hacks in D2 has a lot to do with people's hatred of PKers. In an environment without duped runewords (or whites and iths in older patches) or TPPK, I think PK would be seen as a much more honorable and challenging form of game play. I could see it being a lot like LLD pk, where level 30s try to hunt down much higher levels. Anyway, I do think people should be able to "play in the park," I'd just like to see that made possible with a minimum of restrictive rules and I think that item tiers (the subject of this thread) are overly restrictive.

I just wantd to say "no" to this. Even without tppk, iths, whites etc, the offensive PK is not a normal match for a character. Take for example the level 20 TS assassin (or was it 18?).

You have basically a character with 12 max dmg gems in everything, a full set of uniques or other items (like a jewelers large shield of blocking) which have been socketed, an easy to get item like cleglaws sword, and either bloodfist or cleglaws gloves (though if you dont use the gloves I think you have to use the shield), Hawkmail or 4pruby gothic plate, full set of angelics, deaths sash, I forget what boots. Up until here this is a fairly impressive twinking set for a leveling character that most people wont put the same amount of time into. And that's not counting charms.

For skills you basically have two things, Burst of speed (what, 4 points), max TS at 20 points, and a point in psy hammer. This is not a build that would be really "successful" in pve so you would not likely run into a mirror fight.

Additionally, what did the low level pk have over the grinding player? 60 hps from quests, 15 stat points and 12 skill points, potentially.

What you end up with is a character with about 300 more hps than the average character at their level (since the gear reqs are low, they only need enough to use the very lowest level gear and the rest goes to vit, +60 from quest +hp on lots of gear like 4pruby goth, the unique cap etc), you have a weapon that has 18 inherent +max dmg, plus the extra 50 or so max in gems, leaving something like 80-90ish max damage, 50% crit strike and then an extra what, 1500% damage bonus, or 16 times damage. 16x 90ish = dead people in 1 lucky hit.

Additionally, you basically move faster than all leveling characters.

So while you aren't cheating, it's not like the prey has a snowballs chance in hell in fending off a good pk, unless they themselves are leveling a pk as well. And while it's noble to think of your level 18 pk going for "higher level" targets, it still isn't particularly 'fair', because (and I know this is a d2 example) your built and tuned pk has 6 extra levels statwise WITHOUT GEAR into account and 12 extra levels skill wise, putting them well above the level 18 arena, arguably, generally higher than the level 30 arena.

My point is, that even without cheating, and even without high level pking low level characters, it's still impossible for a typical character leveling to hold a candle to a pk. It puts it in a situation where the pk has nothing to lose and the prey has everything to lose if they stick around so the only logical thing is to go to town and wait or simply leave the game.

It's nice to not have to go to town and sit around every time some j/o comes in and hits the hostile button. Yes, I know that's how the game is set up, but waiting and trying to defend against a pk is nothing short of foolish, particularly when you're not at full life in the process of killing mobs. For the intelligent player, PKing serves no other purpose than to disrupt their game, and if it's once again implemented I think most people will gravitate toward private games or simply not partying with people (at least in hc). While that may be what we get, it certainly isn't the most constructive in terms of community and the social networking aspect of the game.

You say "well that's the game you bought", I say "true, but I don't like it, and I don't think D3 should be the same way. I just want to play in the park".

Oh yeah, and a group of players who's main goal is to make other people feel bad and give them grief really shouldn't be catered to. It's destructive, hurtful, and inappropriate behavior. You may say I am taking the game too seriously, but I would argue that you are taking the actions of the real human beings who are playing the game too lightly.

Well put.

visom

29-07-2008, 19:47

I never said I wanted PK to be removed.

Even though my idea (i admit) is not very good, it does prove a point in having SOME comparisons in items and levels before PK is allowed. Yes it would be hard to rank an item level, but not too hard to seperate it into smaller categories like "crappy, decent, good, godly" and people within the same category can Pk. Even if one guy is in the crappy category and the other is in the godly one, they can still duel if the weaker guy agrees. Otherwise if he doesn't, the system will automatically count it as harassing other players and will automatically reject Pk.

5zigen

29-07-2008, 20:00

I never said I wanted PK to be removed.

I could tell this. your attempt was to make it so that only likeishly geared players should be able to pk, when that's really only half the story. You're not counting skills, you're not counting levels in your formula, and ultimately if you were to try to add in those things it would become excessively convoluted.

Is it OK to have a naked lvl 90 sorc come and instantly kill questers at level 20ish? That would be perfectly reasonable under your system, unless you also gave character levels some quality in your ranking. Even then, as I talked about with my assassin example, you're using relatively low end equipment to make a character that is way above what most characters near their level stand.

Ultimately it's way too convoluted that still does little to nothing to actually protect the environment of those who dont believe non consensual pk is a positive aspect of the game and wish to not take part in it.

Atop of that, your system seems like it restricts consensual pvp which I'm sure no one is for.

Sein Schatten

29-07-2008, 22:47

you're not counting levels in your formula, and ultimately if you were to try to add in those things it would become excessively convoluted.

Of course levels are looked at, too. ;)
Anyway, your other post is very well put. I completely agree. :thumbup:

visom

29-07-2008, 23:49

I could tell this. your attempt was to make it so that only likeishly geared players should be able to pk, when that's really only half the story. You're not counting skills, you're not counting levels in your formula, and ultimately if you were to try to add in those things it would become excessively convoluted.
well yea likeishly geared players should be able to pk, but i did say that even different levels can PK if both agrees

skills is only one part, the game can't really rate your skills. besides its hard to have skills when someone else's gear completely crushes yours

and i did say level but it was in one of my post after the thread (look for it if you want), i didnt say i would leave level out

and yes it'll be much more complicated but the players don't have to do much thinking, all they have to do is agree to duel, or not

Is it OK to have a naked lvl 90 sorc come and instantly kill questers at level 20ish? That would be perfectly reasonable under your system, unless you also gave character levels some quality in your ranking. Even then, as I talked about with my assassin example, you're using relatively low end equipment to make a character that is way above what most characters near their level stand.
i did forget to mention that level would also count, thats why i posted it somewhere on this thread, i didnt say i would leave it out

Ultimately it's way too convoluted that still does little to nothing to actually protect the environment of those who dont believe non consensual pk is a positive aspect of the game and wish to not take part in it.
How would you know that it'll do little to no good? Even I don't know that it'll be a positive thing or not, but I do know that it'll eliminate the main core of unnecessary PK and that has to have an impact on reducing or stopping unnecessary PK.

Atop of that, your system seems like it restricts consensual pvp which I'm sure no one is for.
It "seems" like it but its not, I mentioned this too many times... "if both players want to PvP, they can do so and ignore the protection of the system". My system has the main concept of the old one in D2 (prevents people level 9 and under from pvp) but it goes beyond that.

read bolded words

5zigen

30-07-2008, 09:17

read bolded words

That's a really irritating way to make a response :P no offense.

That said, it including levels still wouldn't change the fact that it wouldn't work. The Pk I listed up before had no "awesome" gear. 5 set items and a bunch of blues / socketed items. Yet to place a non pvp build up against it is pointless.

The point is, if you restrict by level, people will just get all the quest rewards possible while staying at the lowest possible level, and if you restrict by gear, people will just use mediocre gear, as that's always been what is best for PK setups. What do you need other than socketed items and max dmg jewels or rubies in D2.

The fact of the matter is that PK characters are fundamentally different than non-pk characters. It's not like a PK is just going to have "better" gear. They're going to have gear for 1 purpose, killing people, which means unpredictable and incredibly high burst damage. They're going to have skills for 3 purposes, catching up to, stunning, and doing incredible burst single target damage.

You seem to be forgetting, a PK has a target level. They want to get the 'best' setup for that level and then kill people higher level than them because those people won't expect to die to someone who is significantly lower level.

The point is this, putting in level requirements wouldnt work. If I have a lvl 18 that can lucky 1 shot a lvl 25, and no uniques on, 5 low level set items and some socketed gear, how is your system going to do anything to stop me from pking at virtually no risk? It seemed the point of the thread wasn't to stop "unnecessary pk" but to stop "unfair" pk, because from a necessity standpoint it's hard to argue for PK workings (unless you want to get into the whole economic system of HC).

It's also implied that you want to stop unfair pk in that you're trying to match players by gear and level, which also suggests you're trying to eliminate unfair pk. But heres the thing, 90% of people who pk have an advantage (significant) at a lower level than their prey. The other 10% are just hostiling people with their pvm characters because they want to be douchey. The point is, PK is inherently unfair, regardless of trying to index every peice of gear and compare them to levels of players. The skills used, the stats spent etc lead to the inherent imbalnce that results from a pk going after a non-pk

It was perfectly acceptable in D2, that's how the game was designed and none of it was exploitative, sort of. That said, it wasn't the best thing for D2, but it's more of a Hardcore problem than a softcore problem, because, well ears and gold aren't really worth much.

The fact of the matter is, it would be very very difficult to make characters that are all equally capable of pvp and pve, it's not even a goal any rpgish games have ever ATTEMPTED to my knowledge. So even just ignoring the inherent imbalances that will result in unfair matchups, you still have the inherent imbalance that you're forcing people who are building characters expressly for pve into a pvp situation.

Just to draw out why this is more unfair and questionably morally incongruent. While many of the pvp people (phool comes to mind, there are others) argue that it's unfair to make people who want to pvp only pve to get gear and make characters for pvp. On the other hand, it's even worse when you are ultimately forcing people who are not only not intending to pvp in general, they don't intend to pvp with a given character, yet you're forcing it to directly compete with a pvp character. At least by forcing a pvp player to pve to make their characters they dont have to compete with the other pve players, if anything other pve players are invaluable as they can essentially leech off of a decent one.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as "necessary" PK. There is unfair pk, or if you want to use unfair you could call it advantaged or disadvantaged or whatever. But the end result, in almost any system imaginable, is going to be that pk oriented characters will always have an advantage over pve oriented characters.

P.S. Another reason why it would be difficult and impractical is that you would have to either a) index all item stats and give them values based on how strong they are in pvp b) index every item based on how "powerful" in pvp it is. Either of those would be of questionable effectiveness, as several of the stats for pvp and pve do overlap. In the end this would require them to examine every peice of loot, give it a score, introduce an entirely new hostile system that will probably take a lot to ensure that it both works and isn't rife with ways to exploit the system (unequipping and requiping items while hostiled comes to mind).

It's an incredibly convoluted system that doesnt ultimately solve precisely what it's meant to solve. Sure, it would cut down on high levels harrassing low levels, but ultimately it doesn't make pk "fair" as that's an impossible goal, so what's the point in going through all this trouble (the dev time devoted to the hostile system, the item indexing etc) to accomplish something that, in all probability, can not be accomplished?

Sein Schatten

30-07-2008, 14:15

ilvl. It worked in WoW(pre pvp/pve tailored stats) and will work in D3.
It isn't always black and white. Should we remove police forces because they cannot protect all humans all the time? No, because they make the streets far more secure. Should we not implement a system to make fair fights most of the time?

visom

30-07-2008, 17:26

That's a really irritating way to make a response :P no offense.

That said, it including levels still wouldn't change the fact that it wouldn't work. The Pk I listed up before had no "awesome" gear. 5 set items and a bunch of blues / socketed items. Yet to place a non pvp build up against it is pointless.

The point is, if you restrict by level, people will just get all the quest rewards possible while staying at the lowest possible level, and if you restrict by gear, people will just use mediocre gear, as that's always been what is best for PK setups. What do you need other than socketed items and max dmg jewels or rubies in D2.

The fact of the matter is that PK characters are fundamentally different than non-pk characters. It's not like a PK is just going to have "better" gear. They're going to have gear for 1 purpose, killing people, which means unpredictable and incredibly high burst damage. They're going to have skills for 3 purposes, catching up to, stunning, and doing incredible burst single target damage.

You seem to be forgetting, a PK has a target level. They want to get the 'best' setup for that level and then kill people higher level than them because those people won't expect to die to someone who is significantly lower level.

The point is this, putting in level requirements wouldnt work. If I have a lvl 18 that can lucky 1 shot a lvl 25, and no uniques on, 5 low level set items and some socketed gear, how is your system going to do anything to stop me from pking at virtually no risk? It seemed the point of the thread wasn't to stop "unnecessary pk" but to stop "unfair" pk, because from a necessity standpoint it's hard to argue for PK workings (unless you want to get into the whole economic system of HC).

It's also implied that you want to stop unfair pk in that you're trying to match players by gear and level, which also suggests you're trying to eliminate unfair pk. But heres the thing, 90% of people who pk have an advantage (significant) at a lower level than their prey. The other 10% are just hostiling people with their pvm characters because they want to be douchey. The point is, PK is inherently unfair, regardless of trying to index every peice of gear and compare them to levels of players. The skills used, the stats spent etc lead to the inherent imbalnce that results from a pk going after a non-pk

It was perfectly acceptable in D2, that's how the game was designed and none of it was exploitative, sort of. That said, it wasn't the best thing for D2, but it's more of a Hardcore problem than a softcore problem, because, well ears and gold aren't really worth much.

The fact of the matter is, it would be very very difficult to make characters that are all equally capable of pvp and pve, it's not even a goal any rpgish games have ever ATTEMPTED to my knowledge. So even just ignoring the inherent imbalances that will result in unfair matchups, you still have the inherent imbalance that you're forcing people who are building characters expressly for pve into a pvp situation.

Just to draw out why this is more unfair and questionably morally incongruent. While many of the pvp people (phool comes to mind, there are others) argue that it's unfair to make people who want to pvp only pve to get gear and make characters for pvp. On the other hand, it's even worse when you are ultimately forcing people who are not only not intending to pvp in general, they don't intend to pvp with a given character, yet you're forcing it to directly compete with a pvp character. At least by forcing a pvp player to pve to make their characters they dont have to compete with the other pve players, if anything other pve players are invaluable as they can essentially leech off of a decent one.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as "necessary" PK. There is unfair pk, or if you want to use unfair you could call it advantaged or disadvantaged or whatever. But the end result, in almost any system imaginable, is going to be that pk oriented characters will always have an advantage over pve oriented characters.

P.S. Another reason why it would be difficult and impractical is that you would have to either a) index all item stats and give them values based on how strong they are in pvp b) index every item based on how "powerful" in pvp it is. Either of those would be of questionable effectiveness, as several of the stats for pvp and pve do overlap. In the end this would require them to examine every peice of loot, give it a score, introduce an entirely new hostile system that will probably take a lot to ensure that it both works and isn't rife with ways to exploit the system (unequipping and requiping items while hostiled comes to mind).

It's an incredibly convoluted system that doesnt ultimately solve precisely what it's meant to solve. Sure, it would cut down on high levels harrassing low levels, but ultimately it doesn't make pk "fair" as that's an impossible goal, so what's the point in going through all this trouble (the dev time devoted to the hostile system, the item indexing etc) to accomplish something that, in all probability, can not be accomplished?

fine i won't bold word quote anymore, that'll make it harder for me...anyways

In your first few paragraph you've said my idea is bad for questing, but I was never aimed at questing. Look, a level 10 with crappy gears and a level 99 with godly gears can be in the same room (if the host didnt set level restriction), they can even be in a party (just like the old system) but they can't pull off a quick PK, they have to both be agreed with first before they can duel. Otherwise if not, then no PK'ing will happen. But it just hit me...this seems more like an invitation towards a duel, why not just remove PK? Why would you even want it, to kill people who haven't even done anything to you? To kill someone thats pissing you off (which is not very valid since they can't kill you either)? Make it as if the only way to kill another player is both having to agree with it.

Also you were talking about how you dislike level restrictions, but level restrictions is also in D2 so it's not my fault for that.

And another thing, you keep talking as if I'm trying to remove PK, but I'm not. If both sides agree to a PK, they can do so, if not then no PK.

Gigashadow

30-07-2008, 20:41

If both sides agree to a PK, they can do so, if not then no PK.PK is UNCONSENTUAL PvP. What you are talking about is duels. If you only want people to PvP on consent, you are basically removing PK.

5zigen

31-07-2008, 09:38

Ilvl wouldn't work...

Maras neck is the same Ilvl as the rising sun. Skin of the vipermagi is lower ilvl than ormus robes. Angelic ring / necklace are lower ilvl than basically any comparable necklace.

Sure it would eliminate the most extreme discrepancies, but you would still have people in nm with mid level uniques stomping on people in nm with their low level gear they're trying to replace.

ilvl. It worked in WoW(pre pvp/pve tailored stats) and will work in D3.
It isn't always black and white. Should we remove police forces because they cannot protect all humans all the time? No, because they make the streets far more secure. Should we not implement a system to make fair fights most of the time?

It isn't always black and white. But we aren't talking about police here. We're talking about doing a bunch of extra work to make sure that when some players harass other players it's slightly more "fair". That's silly. Why try to reduce the problem, when removing the problem altogether is cheaper and easier (that is, simply removing non consensual pvp)?

fine i won't bold word quote anymore, that'll make it harder for me...anyways

Thanks, it makes it alot easier for me!

But it just hit me...this seems more like an invitation towards a duel, why not just remove PK? Why would you even want it, to kill people who haven't even done anything to you? To kill someone thats pissing you off (which is not very valid since they can't kill you either)? Make it as if the only way to kill another player is both having to agree with it.

Also you were talking about how you dislike level restrictions, but level restrictions is also in D2 so it's not my fault for that.

And another thing, you keep talking as if I'm trying to remove PK, but I'm not. If both sides agree to a PK, they can do so, if not then no PK.

It's not that I dislike level restrictions. My point was that they wouldn't accomplish the desired effect. But your big paragraph I left there sounds like you're more understanding my point. I think there's a bit of a discrepancy here.

That is that PK is generally considered attacking another player without their consent. PvP is attacking another player when you've both consented to fight.

I understood you don't want to remove pvp, but I wasn't sure how you felt about PK. I just wanted to let you know why I think, which is why I wrote an essay about my opinion in your thread. Thanks for reading it, I'm convinced you understood it.

And I didn't think your system was bad for questing, I just felt that it would still be massively unfair (under any system really) for a pk to go kill a person while questing.

phool

31-07-2008, 17:40

ilvl. It worked in WoW(pre pvp/pve tailored stats) and will work in D3.

Bold statement. Back it up, this time?

Ilvl in the diablo sense is a worthless indicator, merely a hidden record of the mlvl of what dropped it (rounded to 99 if higher). In the WoW sense... well you'll have to explain how that can be applied to D2 and why it transfers well into Diablo's skill and item system.

Sein Schatten

31-07-2008, 18:02

Bold statement. Back it up, this time?

You didn't play back then, did you?
Raiders stomped non-raiders. Why? Because their items were superior in any way. There was basically no difference between PvE and PvP stats. No resilience and whatever. Epics got gradually higher ilevel and the stats got better and better.
Today you have a clear cut between PvP and PvE. PvP items have different stats, rightly so.

I already linked to the wowwiki which explains ilevel. It is a point&buy system. An item has 300 points and now you can buy stats for 300 points.

Anyway, 5zigen is right. Just remove PK entirely (not PvP).

HappyAssassin

31-07-2008, 21:01

Sein Schatten

31-07-2008, 21:29

I read your post and somehow, I think, you got through to me. If you are okay with a level restriction, as you said. Having a pub game with no level restriction but the PK can still not kill someone with a level difference of 8 or so is fine by me.

visom

01-08-2008, 02:00

Ilvl wouldn't work...

Maras neck is the same Ilvl as the rising sun. Skin of the vipermagi is lower ilvl than ormus robes. Angelic ring / necklace are lower ilvl than basically any comparable necklace.

Sure it would eliminate the most extreme discrepancies, but you would still have people in nm with mid level uniques stomping on people in nm with their low level gear they're trying to replace.

It isn't always black and white. But we aren't talking about police here. We're talking about doing a bunch of extra work to make sure that when some players harass other players it's slightly more "fair". That's silly. Why try to reduce the problem, when removing the problem altogether is cheaper and easier (that is, simply removing non consensual pvp)?

Thanks, it makes it alot easier for me!

It's not that I dislike level restrictions. My point was that they wouldn't accomplish the desired effect. But your big paragraph I left there sounds like you're more understanding my point. I think there's a bit of a discrepancy here.

That is that PK is generally considered attacking another player without their consent. PvP is attacking another player when you've both consented to fight.

I understood you don't want to remove pvp, but I wasn't sure how you felt about PK. I just wanted to let you know why I think, which is why I wrote an essay about my opinion in your thread. Thanks for reading it, I'm convinced you understood it.

And I didn't think your system was bad for questing, I just felt that it would still be massively unfair (under any system really) for a pk to go kill a person while questing.

Well, at least we both got some confusions straighted out.

I really do like PvP, but not PK. Yeah my system would be a bit complicated, not for the players but for the blizzard team to make, but I really do feel that it'll be somewhat worth it.

phool

01-08-2008, 03:06

You didn't play back then, did you?
Raiders stomped non-raiders. Why? Because their items were superior in any way. There was basically no difference between PvE and PvP stats. No resilience and whatever. Epics got gradually higher ilevel and the stats got better and better.
Today you have a clear cut between PvP and PvE. PvP items have different stats, rightly so.

I already linked to the wowwiki which explains ilevel. It is a point&buy system. An item has 300 points and now you can buy stats for 300 points.

Anyway, 5zigen is right. Just remove PK entirely (not PvP).

I didn't play... ever, actually. As a non Wow-player I am unable to effecitvely process your link and determine whether it would work for D2. I do know D2 and WoW are extremely different games and my brief skim suggested it wouldn't transfer well at all, due to inability to numerate complicated and situationally powerful D2 affixes.

Neferim

08-08-2008, 22:32

PK isn't simply a case of taking a well geared character against a bad one. Most of the time the PKer is outnumbered, frequently 7 to 1. Even if a level 30 LLD vs. a level 45 PvM is an "unfair" fight, you can't tell me 5 against 1 is "unfair." The PvMers are more than capable of killing the single PK, so long as they don't panic. A level 30 PK hunting 40+ characters has to cope with casters who have nearly maxed their primary attack, which will always be dangerous even with an "extra" 300 HP. Everyone is potting in a PK situation as well, which is a huge advantage for the PvM party because they can take turns fighting the PK and wearing them down. In fact, most of the advantage is on the PvM party's side, which brings me back to my earlier point that most PKers are simply better at the game than their targets. If people actually used even rudimentary teamwork and/or thought about strategy for a minute instead of whining and crying foul, PKers would have a hard time in 90% of the games they attack.

At the risk of repeating myself, it is not about being outnumbered and it is not about being a "fair" fight. I know if I was in a party doing some PvM with my friends and a PK came along, he would not have a "fair fight" if there ended up being a fight at all. Most likely we would all run to town and try and wait him out, or just leave the game and try to start a new one. The point isn't whether or not he can wipe us out or whether or not it's a 7v1 or anything like that. It's not even about dying. Diablo is a game where I can accept a death now and then. As I've said before in other threads, I tend to play mods for D2 over the original game, and they are typically much more difficult than Lord of Destruction. I HAVE to accept some deaths in these mods and I have no problem with it.

So what is it about then, if not dying or a fair fight? It's about the will of the PK being imposed upon a group of people who find that style of gameplay utterly distasteful and intrusive. Your scenario assumes that the group of people who the PK goes hostile against will welcome the challenge of a impromptu fight against a human opponent, but this is not always the case. By hostiling me without my concent, I effectively have to leave the game, because the game I wanted to play is no longer available. I guess in a sense it is about fairness, but from a perspective -outside- the game itself. I am not able to play a PvM game in peace with other people who would like to do the same, but a PKer is able to FORCE us to play his game. That is not fair.

What I'm trying to demonstrate is that legit PK is a pretty compelling gaming experience. It has a lot of dynamics you don't find anywhere else in the game, and honestly it probably involves more strategy than just about anything else in Diablo short of well organized team duels. I think Diablo 3 will be a better game if it includes the situations I've described, and the fact that they're involuntary on one side doesn't seem to be a huge problem. Actually, they MUST be involuntary in order to be interesting and fun. Is it so bad that a PK interrupts the mindless task of killing monsters for a game of cat and mouse (mice) against a thinking, adapting opponent? I think it's completely worth the potential frustration that some PvMers will feel to make such a game available.

You are discounting a large group of people with this mindset. All of this assumes that the people getting PKed are accepting of the experience. Your arguments assumes that they, on some level, WANT the threat of sudden PvP interaction. You are saying that participation is simply involuntary, but I am saying that participation is unWILLING. I don't want to play PvP, and I certainly don't want to play PvP without consent. If this is the case, then the experience is not deep, not interesting, not fun at all. It is offensive and frustrating. The point of interrupting mindless grinding is a topic for another thread, but my stance on that would be: I would prefer the task of killing monsters be raised to a point where it is challenging and deserving of strategic thought and play all by itself rather than having to be interrupted by a "refreshing" PvP battle.

What I think should be preserved is the players freedom to take their similarly leveled character up against a group if they so choose.

I don't think anyone would deny them that as long as the group of people is also ok with it, which is the point. On the other hand, I want the freedom to start a game for PvM where I and other like-minded people can fight against our monsters without the threat of uninvited PvP. Why is the freedom of the griefing PK deserve more protection than my own freedom? Let me put it this way: Only a griefer would derive an ounce of enjoyment from hostiling me. If you are a "legit PK" out for the challenge and the ear that you fought the good fight for, you're out of luck. I'm not going to fight back because I am uninterested in that type of combat. If this is the case, then why protect the freedoms of the people who enjoy hostiling me? They have destructive, divisive personalities that drive them to ruin the fun of others for their enjoyment. Not something I would want to preserve.

Keep in mind this is all about "legit" PK. The hacks and dupes are the main problem anyway, and they have warped people's idea of what PK can be. Instead of an interesting game, most PK is a fully geared hammerdin using maphack to blaze down to the bottom of baal and murder everyone in seconds, or even worse, TPPK. Without the hacks and dupes, it would be a very different story.

Hacks and dupes are only the main problem if you encourage and condone PKing in the first place. If I am hostiled in a game, it doesn't matter if they hack or are "legit". I have the same amount of fun either way: none. Less than none, really, because I get frustrated, which makes the fun I was having fade into the back of my mind due to the frustration. Please try to understand where I am coming on this issue. I am not saying that PvP should be done away with, or even PK. I am saying that PK should only be available for people who WANT the threat of uninvited PvP interaction. If that is not possible to implement without removing PK entirely, then I would say it needs to be removed.

Sorry for the long delay in posts by the way, I don't check this forum all that reguarly because it isn't quite as active as some others. I appreciate the compliment you gave on my previous post also. I do try to make my arguments as well constructed as possible. It is refreshing to have a discussion with someone such as you as opposed to the other threads that ended up getting locked. You seem like a reasonable person, and I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it.

Jarath

11-08-2008, 06:40

The fact that 1 well geared PKer can attack a group of 7 PvM players whether they are organised or not should speak volumes. The fact is that PK characters and PvM characters are built and played in such a radically different way that 9 times in 10 the PvM player will stand absolutely 0 chance unless they actually spec their character to also be anti-PK (anti TPPK in the HC forum as an example). Also while it's true that attempting to PK a group of high level players IS risky... how many PKers actually do this on a regular basis? EVERY PK guide I have read involves specing a LOW level character because they are perfect for hunting LOW-MID level characters.

The PvP/PK implementation in diablo 2 is nothing short of appalling but it doesn't surprise me that people defend it. PKing in diablo 2 basically encourages and rewards you for s***ing in other people's cereal and the anonymity of the internet allows us to do this with reckless abandon.

I agree with what Neferim is saying IN THEORY but I can't really say whether or not it'll work since I don't have much experience with WoW PvM/PvP, I can't say whether or not that system works. All I know is the D2 system is horribly broken.

I will quite happily play in and enjoy a PvP environment in Diablo 3, as long as it is implemented properly.

Neferim

11-08-2008, 07:29

I agree with what Neferim is saying IN THEORY but I can't really say whether or not it'll work since I don't have much experience with WoW PvM/PvP, I can't say whether or not that system works.

Actually my personal feeling is to do away with the open-hostility system altogether and redesign the entire way player interaction works online to be much more cooperative and the PvP much more structured. If that's not possible, then I am open to a compromise such as the systems I've laid out in various posts. I agree with you that the open-hostility system is downright offensive and gives the most privilege to the most divisive players. Discussing this issue is pretty much the entire reason I registered at these forums, and I feel very strongly about it. I don't know if you'd be interested in this, but here's a link to an old discussion between a respected member of the community and Max Schaefer on PKing. I posted it before, but I think Max's responses give a lot of insight as far as Blizzard North's attitude towards their customers. He totes the ability to grief other players as some sort of incredibly advanced dynamic that reproduces the immersion level of a pen and paper RPG. It would laughable if it wasn't so disappointing.

http://sirian.warpcore.org/diablo2/protest.html

Jarath

11-08-2008, 15:38

That is a pretty disappointing response and it seems pretty clear to me that it was made with the assumption that PK characters are working fully as intended. I seriously doubt (hope) that the current way that building a PK character vs a PvM character works is what they truly had in mind when they implemented it. I very much doubt that when blizzard implemented a PK system, their grand scheme was to have level 18 twinked out characters joining games and PKing groups of lvl 40+ players. You only have to look at some of the skills in the game and how grossly overpowered they are in PvP circumstances to realise that PVP was not thought through or balanced very well.

CaptainDingo

12-08-2008, 15:29

I don't want to sound like a dick, but the best way to stop PKers is to password your game... is it not? You risk playing with assholes when you open the flood gates and let anyone and everyone in.

Okay, well, while I think my solution is a fine and dandy one as it is, perhaps that's not a very acceptable one for the rest of you.

So why not just give our Battle.net accounts a blacklist? People on our list can't join our games. Then nobody plays with anyone they don't want to play with. Seems like everyone wins there, unless I'm missing something.

Jarath

13-08-2008, 01:34

Password protecting games is a preventative but not really a solution. Just look at the HC community for reference. I guarantee you that half the people complaining about PKs joining their game wouldn't give a toss if the whole PK vs PvM system wasn't so broken. If PK characters weren't so utterly dominant over PvM builds then lone PKs would not be able to disrupt entire games full of players, they'd have to join up with other PKs and form groups of their own and then you might actually see some decent PVP instead of 1 player being nigh-untouchable vs everyone else.

CaptainDingo

13-08-2008, 04:31

It had occurred to me that the simplest fix in the world for this would be to implement a wait time between activating Hostility and when you're actually allowed to start harming other players.

Think of it this way, some dick you're teamed with and think you're getting along great with suddenly decides it's time to go for the throat. He says "Lulz noob!" (or whatever their war cry is, I dunno) and activates Hostility. You hear that dreadful, awful noise it makes and... oh, a timer just activated. You still have 10 seconds before he's allowed to hurt you.

So you wrap up what you're doing and go back to town. Victory is yours, and you cackle at this failed shanker!

Nimbostratus

13-08-2008, 06:53

How about a system with two or more hostile buttons?

Button 1: Ask for/accept a duel. Player 1 asks player 2 for a duel. Player 2 can accept or decline.

Button 2: Attempt hostility. Player 1 expresses hostility towards Player 2. If the game has 3 or more players in it, Players 3 through <however many they allow> can either deny or allow him to attack; majority vote wins, while a tie favors denying the action. If there are only two players in the game, the action automatically passes. This way, the guy being a total jerk in your game can be dealt with, but a large group can protect you from PKers. Safety in numbers (unless you've suitably PO'ed a majority of those numbers. =P).

There could be more situations added to this, but that could get rather complicated.

rolandk10

13-08-2008, 06:57

How about as a solution, instead of limiting the current PK system, enhace it. Give some actual rewards for having a party take on and kill someone who hostiled it. Even if the PKer is about to lose and exits the game before death, it coulud be registered as a win.

I think an ear is hardly worth fighting over but some kind of system that would give some kind of reward based on differences in level or damage or resists or any combonation of whatever. If I actually had some real incentive, it would make things more interesting.

This could work both ways to let the PKer get a reward too but if it was based on level and damage, twinked or over powered characters wouldn't get as much of a reward as a super underdog.

Neferim

13-08-2008, 08:24

I don't want to sound like a dick, but the best way to stop PKers is to password your game... is it not? You risk playing with assholes when you open the flood gates and let anyone and everyone in.

This has been gone over many times, but I will summarize my previous posts here. The reason to play in an open game is to meet other people and play the game you both like together. Passwording games makes this impossible. I want to play a PvM game with other like-minded individuals, but the open-hostility system makes this impossible. Blah, I'm just going to quote myself.

Here's the thing about your analogy. I can just go down to the park and start up a game of baseball/football/whatever with some friends. Then, maybe if some other people want to join in, whatever. It's a casual game, we're not involved in some huge competition beyond the inherent competition in the game. This would be analagous to the inherent challenge presented in the PvM elements of D2. On the other hand, there is professional sports play, where you go out and acknowledge that you need to do everything you can to win, you're not just messing around anymore. This is analagous of people who try to climb the ladder in D2.

Here's my problem: I am unable to play D2 multiplayer in a casual manner. I am OBLIGATED to go pro, I can't just play in the park. Sure, I can play at home or maybe even invite some friends over, but that's not as much fun as going to the park and meeting those people we didn't know. Inviting them into the game was as much a reason we went to the park as the game itself.

How about as a solution, instead of limiting the current PK system, enhace it. Give some actual rewards for having a party take on and kill someone who hostiled it. Even if the PKer is about to lose and exits the game before death, it coulud be registered as a win.

I think an ear is hardly worth fighting over but some kind of system that would give some kind of reward based on differences in level or damage or resists or any combonation of whatever. If I actually had some real incentive, it would make things more interesting.

This could work both ways to let the PKer get a reward too but if it was based on level and damage, twinked or over powered characters wouldn't get as much of a reward as a super underdog.

That doesn't solve anything. In fact, it makes the problem even worse. Regardless of what the rewards are, I don't want uninvited PvP interaction, and I WILL NOT FIGHT BACK. This is what many people are failing to realize. There are people who find the open-hostility system so distasteful and offensive that even if the odds appear to be fair, they don't WANT to fight. If I want PvP interaction, I will go find people who I can fight in a consensual duel or some other structured PvP event. Please go back and read through the thread if you haven't fone so already to get a better idea of what we're talking about here. It's only 7 pages long, it's not so bad.

rolandk10

13-08-2008, 08:31

That doesn't solve anything. In fact, it makes the problem even worse. Regardless of what the rewards are, I don't want uninvited PvP interaction, and I WILL NOT FIGHT BACK. This is what many people are failing to realize. There are people who find the open-hostility system so distasteful and offensive that even if the odds appear to be fair, they don't WANT to fight. If I want PvP interaction, I will go find people who I can fight in a consensual duel or some other structured PvP event. Please go back and read through the thread if you haven't fone so already to get a better idea of what we're talking about here. It's only 7 pages long, it's not so bad.

Belive me. I understand. I never pk'd and I camp in town like everyone else when I get hostiled. I just get the feeling that as much as some may like to see the Pk system go away, it's not going to. So I was just trying to think of a way to make it more interesting.

Jarath

13-08-2008, 13:35

Also from what I gather, PKs are not in it for rewards and whether or not they are in it for a challenge is also slightly dubious. Their reward is the rush they get from the thrill of the hunt.

Giving players the options to vote on the attack or giving them an extra 5 seconds to run and hide still doesn't change the fact that a player built for PKing in diablo2 will annihilate a player (or group of players) built for PvM unless there is a serious level gap. This is what must change for diablo 3. If you want to build a character specifically designed to hunt other players in diablo 3 then yes you deserve an advantage for optimising your items and skills but nothing close to what we have now.

A really simple implementation would be to have the option to set the game to allow hostilities when it is created. This way, if you don't want to be PKed or don't want to have to deal with the threat of PKers can play in peace. If people want the thrill or challenge of playing in an environment that could turn hostile at any moment... set the game to allow hostilities. Everyone wins and you don't need to split the servers up or anything like that. You'd be able to see what options are enabled before you join the game so you know exactly what you're going to get.

Now I'm sure some people will say "but that limits the amount of games I can go into and PK!". Well yes, it does. However if you see a game with the PVP option checked then you know before you go in that people in that game are prepared to offer you a fight and you don't have to waste time with people waiting you out in town or whatever. I think this option will make it very clear just how many PKers are in it for the PVP interaction and how many are in it for the griefing. If PVP game creation is almost non-existent then it will just go to show how few people are actually prepared to FIGHT and how many people are only in it for the HUNT.

CaptainDingo

13-08-2008, 19:45

Uncle_Mike

13-08-2008, 20:48

I still think the idea of a wait period between seeing that someone has enabled hostility and the time they're actually allowed to attack you would suit both sides. It suits the people whose complaint is they get hostiled and killed without any chance to really react, and it also suits the people who actually like the surprise of being backstabbed by their partner and attacked (of which there are few, but apparently they exist).

It doesn't suit those who aren't interested in PK because they want to keep playing the game rather than have a chance to exit game/run to town to counter the PKer.

Because frankly, there's never going to be a solution where we can just magically find out who is and isn't a PKer and just disallow them from joining altogether.

The solution would be to create games where PK is either allowed or not allowed at all.

But I also think that a blacklist/ban list tied to your profile would also work wonders. Once blacklisted, neither that character or any character on that person's account would be allowed to join your game (to eliminate people getting on alternate PK characters to repeatedly harass you). So if they're really that much of a nuisance to your enjoyment, you simply disallow them to play with you. And everyone who joins a game could "pool" their blacklists while they're together so that everyone who is blacklisted as a griefer or whatever on everyone's lists counts for the whole game.

It seems that HC PKing is based around low level chars. It's not that hard to create a new account, make a new char and PK with it. Blacklist wouldn't be a perfect solution either. Plust it would require extra work on part of those who are not interested in it. D3 is most likely going to be a hugely popular game. let's say that 50k people decided to play hc and let's say that 500 of them will be dedicated PKers. Are you going to blacklist them all?

CaptainDingo

13-08-2008, 21:06

I'm just offering most likely solutions that Blizzard would even think to implement. Because if Blizzard's stance on PKing is the same now as it was when Lord of Destruction came out, they want you to be PKed. And they don't want you to be able to simply tick a box to permanently disallow it since if they do that, they'd have to remove PKing from the game since it'd no longer have a purpose.

Again, that's if their stance on it hasn't changed.

Jarath

13-08-2008, 21:34

CaptainDingo

13-08-2008, 21:36

I just meant that if you check a "PK/No PK" box before you start playing, PKing isn't PKing anymore. Then every game that was checked for PK would be an expected PvP game and the PKers wouldn't be catching anyone by surprise. If that makes sense.

Not that I care about preserving PKers, I think they're nothing but fun-ruiners, I'm just saying.

Uncle_Mike

13-08-2008, 22:17

It's a tough thing to balance. PKing has always been a controversial issue :)

You could argue that PKing would become a challenge since instead of "owning" pvm characters you'd have to give prepared people a run for their money.

Hige

13-08-2008, 22:21

Hate to say it but Blizzard dun care about D2 anymore. D:

Learn to make password games.

Not everyone has that many friends willing to duel. :D

EDIT: Please forgive the double post

Uncle_Mike

13-08-2008, 22:43

Hate to say it but Blizzard dun care about D2 anymore. D:

Not everyone has that many friends willing to duel. :D

EDIT: Please forgive the double post

can't see any double posts, sorry :whistling:

Tai.

14-08-2008, 00:00

From what I've read on the blizzard forums they've changed their tune somewhat and want to focus on encouraging players to interact and cooperate together to achieve goals. They have acknowledged that the PK/PVP system in diablo 2 is poorly implemented and they don't want a repeat performance.

Why does making PKing an option make it pointless? People who want to play PK/anti-PK can do so in their games and people who want to play without it can do so without getting hassled. It would be similar to playing on PVP/PVM MMO servers, although instead of having a whole realm or server or whatever dedicated to PVP/PVM you could do it on a game by game basis. Reading between the lines; PKing no longer has a purpose because you can no longer PK unwilling victims. That sounds like the very essence of griefing to me...

Well first of all, it isn't so much that the creators of D2 changed their tune about PKing as it is that D3 has a new set of designers who say they personally don't like PKing and are willing to break with Diablo tradition to abolish it.

Secondly, PKing is about risk. It's benefit to the PKer is in attacking a group of supposedly unsuspecting people. This is not necessarily out of a desire to grief so don't assume that it is. Some people hunt unsuspecting people because there is no worthwhile PvP scene on Hardcore with so many chicken hackers and TPPK users. Thus, they create a PvP game by forcing those in the game they choose to either duel or avoid them. The PKer risks their character (I'm assuming legit PKers here) by taking on a game full of unknown characters, over the years I've seen many a PK die to PKKers or chanted parties they don't prepare for.

PKing in its current form is by no means perfect - on Hardcore it's basically nonexistent (just like legit PvP) - but it does grant an aspect of threat to the game. D3 will more than likely not have PK, as long as it has a viable PvP system I'm fine with that, but it isn't because the Diablo 2 design team felt the PK system was a failure, it's because a select group of people didn't find the system enjoyable for them and they make up the completely new design team.

Jarath

14-08-2008, 01:27

I didn't mean to make it sound like their intention is to grief but whether or not that is their main objective, it tends to be a by-product regardless. EG:

Some people hunt unsuspecting people because there is no worthwhile PvP scene on Hardcore with so many chicken hackers and TPPK users. Thus, they create a PvP game by forcing those in the game they choose to either duel or avoid them/

Sounds to me like the people getting forced to play in a way they don't wish to are getting grief, yes?

The entire PK system is basically DESIGNED for griefing on some level, (which I would be fine with, if the risks and rewards were equally balanced) although I doubt the creators of D2 had any idea it would turn out the way it did. I think what was intended and what we actually got were 2 different things entirely.

Tai.

14-08-2008, 01:45

CaptainDingo

14-08-2008, 02:59

Soon as I can make runewords out of people's ears, then we'll talk fair reward!

Why would a design team specifically add a feature to the game with no purpose other than upsetting their player base? I would honestly like an answer to that from you.

Oh, and I can answer this quite simply. In the big long anti-PK protest site where someone had a back and forth with a Blizzard guy about this, he said quite simply that Blizzard makes the game THEY want to play, not the game we want to play. And since he was a higher-up in the decision making process and happens to think PKing adds to the experience (a very very rare opinion on the matter) because of the danger it brings, PKing was set in stone and, because of the reason he believes he put it in, was an atmosphere enhancer and not Blizzard-encouraged griefing.

However, the player base clearly thinks otherwise, or else we wouldn't have these discussions in the first place. The intent of the PK is irrelevant, only the result matters. And the result is, 9 times out of 10, it causes grief, making it grief play.

Also, I highly doubt the majority of PKers do it to "enhance the atmosphere" of other players like the designer had intended. They decked out their character to prey on the weak and unprepared, and thus PKing in practice (not in theory) is mostly just malicious bullying. Nobody who PKs can reasonably expect anyone to actually enjoy it, and for good reason, since the very act is sleazy. And yet, implemented by Blizzard... however!

They didn't put it in to upset the player base, but they refuse to remove it despite the fact it upsets the user base, because the lead designer happened to like the feature for the reason he put it in and thus sees no reason to remove it.

Truth be told, it's a little too wishful a thing to do, to implement a feature that is almost begging to be abused, and leave it to the good-hearted players (hyuck hyuck) to use it responsibly. :P

Oh well, I'm rambling, but as every "Last post" on the forum reads right now I do that in great volumes.

Neferim

14-08-2008, 06:15

That's a specious and oversimplified argument. The PK system was DESIGNED to introduce a degree of realistic fear of your fellow questers to the world of Diablo 2. It makes no sense to have a world with thousands of different adventurers with different minds and assume they all have the exact same intention and that none are out for themselves.

It makes perfect sense. The game of Diablo is one in which you play the hero saving the world from Diablo. There are arguments to be made in favor of PK I'm sure, but the "story" one really does not fly. Why would someone trying to save the world actively sabotage other people who are also trying to save it? You'll note that if you start PKing the story for the game doesn't change. NPCs all say the same thing, you still fight the same act bosses, etc. To say that it makes no sense for all the player characters to get along is silly, because they are DESIGNED to be of an archetype where they would cooperate.

Diablo 2's design team chose not to ask for such a leap of faith from it's gamers - yes it did allow for "griefing" as you call it, but that it was not the intent I think is obvious.

You seem to be under the impression that PKers and "griefers" are different sets of people. This is not necessarily true. Yes, some PKers may be in it only to give other players grief, while others are doing it for other reasons. However, I experience the grief regardless of their intentions. If I go to the park and knock over someone's chess game, then say "Wow, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to upset you, I just thought it would be fun," he most likely will not respond "Oh well in that case don't worry about it. It was a fun challenge!" Regardless of intent, the result is the same.

You are correct that there is more than likely a difference between the PK system they intended and the one that used to be prevalent on Battle.Net.

Actually, the Blizzard North staff was very satisfied with their open-hostility system. Obviously not with the rampant hacking, but the system worked in a way that they were pleased with. Max Schaefer explains all this. Even the system of flagging games as PvP was brought up. He dismissed it, saying that even though the coding task was trivial, they liked it the way it was. Please, PLEASE read the link I've posted. It will give you new insight on the views of Blizzard North.

Secondly, PKing is about risk. It's benefit to the PKer is in attacking a group of supposedly unsuspecting people. This is not necessarily out of a desire to grief so don't assume that it is.

You are ignoring the group of people like myself, who will not even fight back. I find the idea of uninvited hostility and being forced to participate in PvP against my will so unappealing that I either wait in town or leave the game. It's not a "risk" when I get hostiled, it's shooting fish in a barrel. If it's really about "risk" and "the hunt" then people should stop trying to PK me if I just tell them "By the way, I'm not gonna fight back. I just want to PvM, sorry" right? I'll bet that works all the time.

Tai.

14-08-2008, 09:01

Wow, that's a lot of people taking my statements out of context. I see why I avoided this forum for so long.

CaptainDingo, that isn't an answer to the question I asked at all. The previous poster implied that PKing accomplished nothing but causing grief. You responded to my request for an explanation by saying that it served a purpose and was seen as enjoyable by the design team (the same thing I alluded to in my previous post).

Neferim, yes your purpose is to save the world. That does not mean that your purpose is to work together to do so, nor does it mean that you must cooperate with every other person out there vying to save the world. A basic example of what I'm thinking of is the Fellowship of the Ring: they all set out to stop Sauron, but some wanted to destroy the ring while others wanted to use it and others still just went out of loyalty or to protect Frodo etc. They had an endpoint in mind, but they all had separate paths to reach said point. Allowing people the option of attacking and/or looting their fellow adventurers on the way to the final battle seems in keeping with reality to me. I acknowledge that we will probably never see eye-to-eye here as you have shown yourself to be very PvM-centric in previous threads whereas I see the game as having both a PvP and PvM aspect.

You are correct, I do not immediately identify every PKer as a "griefer". My friends who hunt level 60s with level 20s legitly are (in my opinion) not griefing anybody. This may well be because I'm identifying "griefing" as things like NKing, hunting low levels with high levels and making the PvM aspect of the game unplayable - none of which I see these people as doing. It is entirely possible that I'm operating under a false impression of griefing, but I feel that if you are hunting legitly well above your level using an intended game feature you can hardly be considered a griefer.

I never said that Blizzard North wasn't happy with the open-hostility system. I thought I'd stated that the system was put into place intentionally, but perhaps I assumed my statements made that obvious. My mistake for not making my self implicit. We are saying the same thing here just so you know: Blizzard intended open-hostility and the current environment is so riddled with hacks and abuse that it no longer resembles what Blizzard intended. I perhaps made it a bit confusing with my tense usage, I tried to put it in a past connotation as there is no current real threat from legit PKing.

Also, with the legit hunter PKers if they joined the game and you said "Hi, I know you're a PKer. I'm just going to go to town and go afk until you leave" they wouldn't hostile you unless it was a result of hostiling your party members. Why would they? There is no chance of them getting a duel or an ear and all it will do is waste your time. I used to do this exact thing frequently on East when PKers actually existed and the majority of the time the PKer would simply leave the game, often with a polite good-bye.

Don't really want to get back into this stuff, I just felt that I would explain to the people taking what I said differently than I intended what I truly meant.

Cheers
-Tai

CaptainDingo

14-08-2008, 14:34

Just plain seems to be a disagreement about the intent of PKers. You're right, in Lord of the Rings, people had their own agendas. However, I don't recall anyone whipping out a dagger, stabbing Frodo in the face, going "lol fagit" and leaving, or taunting him to get back up because he's a teh baby newb queer.

As with the flaw in Max Schaefer's belief with how the PK system works in practice, again the flaw crops up that people who PK rarely do it for anything except to grief other people and the nasty, jerkish things they say after the kill or when you won't come out from town just goes to prove it. I've never had a friend tell me about an experience they had with a friendly PKer, someone who just said "No hard feelings, was all in good fun!" and promptly disappeared. Instead all I've heard stories of is corpse camping and name calling, so clearly I have reason to believe different things on the whole matter.

People over Battle.net seem to have just gotten more vicious and rude as time goes on. I dunno who you've played with to be able to think otherwise, but I'd love to meet them.

Jarath

14-08-2008, 16:29

The previous poster implied that PKing accomplished nothing but causing grief.

I didn't imply that grief is the ONLY thing is accomplishes but at the end of the day the guy getting PK'ed is experiencing grief.

You are correct, I do not immediately identify every PKer as a "griefer". My friends who hunt level 60s with level 20s legitly are (in my opinion) not griefing anybody. This may well be because I'm identifying "griefing" as things like NKing, hunting low levels with high levels and making the PvM aspect of the game unplayable - none of which I see these people as doing. It is entirely possible that I'm operating under a false impression of griefing, but I feel that if you are hunting legitly well above your level using an intended game feature you can hardly be considered a griefer.

Those may be extreme forms of griefing but the basic definition of a griefer is simply someone who causes grief for other players. "Legitimate" PKing may not be stereotypical griefing but if the end result is grief for one player, what else are you going to call it?

Also: The fact that it is an intended game feature seems moot to me if the feature is not working as intended. I have read the responses from Max Schaefer and yes it does seem like he was happy with the system however his opinions all sounded like they were based on a perfect, hypothetical situation. To me it sounded like he expected there to actually be an element of role play involved (lulz) and for there to actually be real conflict between the players. I don't think twinked out level 20s hunting other players like dogs was what he had in mind and I don't think it's something he himself experienced on a regular basis. At least I hope not, for all we know Max Schaefer could be one of those level 20 PKs. :D

As for your LOTR analogy... it's a bit wonky because as Neferim pointed point, PVP in the game effectively occurs outside of the main story arc. Yes all the characters in LOTR had their own agendas but what kind of agenda does a PK have? "Kill the other players". Why. "because I want to". Why. "because it is fun". Hmm. The problem with the PVP side of the game is that it is entirely what the player makes of it. Besides an ear and some gold, you get nothing for it in-game and it has no effect on the in-game world. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this game is about 90% co-op PVM. The story is completely based around single/co-op PVM and most if not all of the skills were created with co-op/PVM as a priority. This brings me onto another element of Diablo 3... I hope that if I actively seek out and kill other players, NPCs will treat me differently. After slaughtering a barbarian in cold blood I don't want to be welcomed into a barbarian village with open arms and expected to solve all their problems. Might be a bit too much to ask though, especially if Blizzard are going with the standard town > wilderness > next town > wilderness template. I've been playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R recently and the sandbox/faction elements are fairly refreshing for an FPS and it'd be nice to see some of that in Diablo 3. However I doubt Diablo 3 will have the scale required for a sandbox game to work effectively.

Kudos to your friend for hunting down lvl 60+s, at least that does sound like a challenge (even if it does still irritate the lvl 60s). Unfortunately I think it still goes to show just how wonky the PvP system is. If a level 20 PK can do that, imagine what a level 60 PK could do... yipes.

Tai.

15-08-2008, 10:40

Well, it seems you and I are running into different PKers. Of course there is no current PK scene so it's hard to gauge accurately, but in my experience on HC USEast about half the PKers I've encountered in my life were polite or at least silent while they hunted. The others would talk trash in hopes of irritating players into deciding to fight them to shut them up, which generally results in them being memorable and talked about.

I've personally been in games where PKers joined, announced their intent to hostile the party, waited a few seconds, hostiled, waited for the WP timer and then chased us with no vulgarity or immaturity. Generally these PKers either find only PKKers waiting for them or nobody at all. They go to town, check that everyone is there and nobody's trying to be clever and hide in the Stony Tomb or something and leave the game. Overall an interesting event but not irritating enough for you to complain about it to your friends. You'd be even less likely yo rant to your friends about a PKer who simply joined the game, hostiled, saw that everyone left or went to town and left within a minute or two.

I can personally remember many such PKs in my 8 years of playing Diablo 2 Hardcore on East, but I don't think I've ever complained to my friends list about them. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, PKers make noise and provoke their prey into making stupid choices. If it doesn't work the PvMers remember a loud and immature PKer and assume he wants nothing more than to ruin their fun. It may be true that his actions cause grief but that does not make them a "griefer".

I've been roughly working from this definition of griefing:

An act of griefing involves the following three types of actions to be considered grief play:

* The use or abuse of a game mechanic that was not intended by the game's developers.
* The inability of the victim to exact some means of retribution beyond utilizing similar unintended game mechanics.
* The intended purpose of an act of griefing must be to negatively impact the game play of another person

As we can see, the PKer does not fit the first nor the second point as it is not exploiting an unintended feature. I would argue that the intended purpose of the act of PKing is not to negatively impact the game play of another person but to acquire duels that cannot be acquired through other means. Thus, to me your "griefer" fits none of the aforementioned criteria.

This definition is from a Wikipedia article (clearly not the most reliable source though a convenient one) which goes on to list forms of griefing in Diablo 2. It lists: Duping, TPPK, Item-Begging, Town-Killing and Trade Window Abuse. Elsewhere in the article it discusses kill-stealing, causing the server to drop and alludes to actions similar to trapping portals with monsters. Nowhere does it mention PKing within a game designed to house PK.

Sorry to digress to such a degree, I just felt that defining griefing as anything that annoys another gamer was a bit too broad so I sought another definition.

Neferim

17-08-2008, 07:22

I just want to clarify here, I'm not against PvP interaction. Yes, I consider the game to be mainly PvM focused, but I have no problem with PvP interaction. I only have a problem when someone is able to force a PvM player to play PvP against their will. I don't see that as being a constructive or meaningful game experience for the person getting hostiled. Yes, some PKers are not overly malicious but their ultimate goal is still to take me out of the game I want to play for their own enjoyment despite my wishes.

As far as the story goes, I can't really appreciate your analogy since I am only familiar with LotR as movies. I could never get through the books (sorry, I found them tedious) but I think that it's not quite a perfect fit. For example, the only way those who wanted the ring for personal gain could get the ring was to "deal with" the ones who wanted it for pure purposes. In D2, that doesn't really apply. It's not like the only way a PKer can kill Diablo/Baal/etc is to kill all the other characters they meet. It really doesn't make ANY sense story-wise. I can understand not necessarily getting along with other characters or tensions between the peoples that the characters hail from. I mean, who is to say that amazons and barbarians get along that well right? (note:I haven't read any of the Diablo lore or books or anything, so I may be way off here) On the other hand, it still doesn't make any sense for an amazon to waste her time sabotaging a single barbarian who's only goal is to stop the world from slipping into the bowels of destruction and chaos. What is her goal in this scenario? The barbarian's not waging war against her people, he's busy fighting demons. It just makes no sense.

Anyway, I got really off track there, but I think you get what I'm trying to say. I'm hoping there is some sort of compromise that will make everyone happy. The people who enjoy PvP more than PvM, the PvM players that enjoy the injection of PvP into their otherwise mundane routine, and those of us who would prefer to stick to our mundane routine uninterrupted :)

I just wish I could think of one...

drakidia

21-08-2008, 00:44

Full_Circle

21-08-2008, 17:36

It really doesn't make ANY sense story-wise. I can understand not necessarily getting along with other characters or tensions between the peoples that the characters hail from. I mean, who is to say that amazons and barbarians get along that well right? (note:I haven't read any of the Diablo lore or books or anything, so I may be way off here) On the other hand, it still doesn't make any sense for an amazon to waste her time sabotaging a single barbarian who's only goal is to stop the world from slipping into the bowels of destruction and chaos. What is her goal in this scenario? The barbarian's not waging war against her people, he's busy fighting demons. It just makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. The Hero from Diablo I ended up shoving Diablo's soulstone into his head and becoming the Lord of Terror himself. Who knows what the aspiring Heros in Diablo II will do? Best kill them now before we find out.

I've personally been in games where PKers joined, announced their intent to hostile the party, waited a few seconds, hostiled, waited for the WP timer and then chased us with no vulgarity or immaturity.

Have I tried to PK you, Tai?

:coffee:

Jarath

22-08-2008, 17:45

It makes perfect sense. The Hero from Diablo I ended up shoving Diablo's soulstone into his head and becoming the Lord of Terror himself. Who knows what the aspiring Heros in Diablo II will do? Best kill them now before we find out.

That is absolutely ridiculous and you know it.

Full_Circle

22-08-2008, 18:48

That is absolutely ridiculous and you know it.

It's ridiculous that there may be people who don't believe Tyrael is a benevolent Angel helping humanity? Some of us see the light and fight to save the Worldstone from Destruction at the hands of Hells pawns (psst, that's you).

If I were claiming that the above justified my actions, that would be absolutely ridiculous, I agree. But I don't use roleplaying to justify my actions, and I'm not going to bore you with the same tired argument... I'm merely refuting Neferim's claim that PK makes no sense in the storyline.

Jarath

22-08-2008, 19:04

Full_Circle

22-08-2008, 19:53

Fair enough but to refute his point you need to make one that actually makes sense. I mean I could say that my necromancer is a white supremacist and goes around PKing paladins because they're black, doesn't refute his point though.

Did you play Diablo I?

I'm guessing no.

If you did, and you think the idea that your character might be deceived into aiding Hell's forces in Diablo II is "ridiculous" and "doesn't make sense"... well... :crazyeyes:

Neferim

26-08-2008, 19:49

I can't believe I forgot that point in the story line where I'm approached by a servant of darkness and he attempts to deceive my character into working for Diablo instead of fighting against him. We all remember those plot points where a number of different things could happen depending on your decisions as a character right? How you can customize your character's personality and what he/she fights for?

Wait a minute, that doesn't exist at all! Yes, EVERY character is fighting AGAINST Diablo + co. It might be fun for you to pretend that you're fighting for the Prime Evils, but in-game it's just not true. There is nothing anywhere in the game that suggests that you are fighting for Diablo or Baal or against the forces of good or anything like that. If you are a PKer trying to rid the world of people who would disobey your dark masters, does the game have bosses other than Mephisto/Diablo/Baal waiting for you? Of course not.

My point is not that in the lore of Sanctuary a person could never be swayed to work for Diablo, but that the characters -in this game- are incorruptable BY DESIGN. I understand there are arguments to made in favor of PK (though I still disagree with them) but to say that "the story backs it up" is truly grasping at straws. And saying that anyone who disagrees with your view has never played Diablo 2 just makes it seem like you can't back up your statement, so you try and discredit others. Please, attack the argument, not the people who present it. I'm pretty sure we've all played Diablo 2 here.