View Full Version : risk and fear in PVP
I hate how most todays rpg:s have no risk; no risk no fear... just die and respawn, repeat that 200 times per game session. At worst, when you've done it 100000 times it ends up being just boring gear grind
PVP must have some risk included! ...with rewards if you succeed
You should lose all your gear when you die so when you enter pvp area you should bring all those crappy drops you've got. Ofcourse you could bring your top gear and skilled friends with you but don't cry when you die.
Ofcourse there could be WOW type arena competitive games too.
Slight offtopic: I hope they include some risk to PVE too. I love how you lose experience in D2 if you die. Though i hate lag. Dieing lvl 96 sorc was brutal and allmost brought a tear drop :oops: but the fear,excitement and adrenaline of all those close calls made it all worth it hehe :thumbup: atm i'm playing this game where you lose all you wear when you die http://www.eveonline.com/
Let me get this straight: You propose a system where you spend a ton of time looting and trading to get ahold of the best gear...but nobody actually uses it because the risk is so great that it's almost never worth it.
You seeing the problem here?
The whole idea sounds good on paper, but EVE is hardly like Diablo, as it's a lot easier to keep your best gear out of combat, and you can avoid it if you're not prepared to fight.
Synchrotron
16-06-2009, 18:18
Loosing items when you die is terrible, even more when you die because of lag or some cheater that killed you.
Blizzard could add some option to bet items in duels, but making everyone loose their gear when they die is horrible.
LucianDK
18-06-2009, 18:47
Go play Diablo1, there you dropped all your worn items when you died in multiplayer. You would quickly learn to hate that features. Warriors would usually be utterly hosed by not having their items. Only Sorcerers had a real chance of recovering their loot, since theyre skillbased for dps.
Which is why they added the corpse to D2.
I hate how most todays rpg:s have no risk; no risk no fear... just die and respawn, repeat that 200 times per game session. At worst, when you've done it 100000 times it ends up being just boring gear grind
PVP must have some risk included! ...with rewards if you succeed
You should lose all your gear when you die so when you enter pvp area you should bring all those crappy drops you've got. Ofcourse you could bring your top gear and skilled friends with you but don't cry when you die.
Ofcourse there could be WOW type arena competitive games too.
Slight offtopic: I hope they include some risk to PVE too. I love how you lose experience in D2 if you die. Though i hate lag. Dieing lvl 96 sorc was brutal and allmost brought a tear drop :oops: but the fear,excitement and adrenaline of all those close calls made it all worth it hehe :thumbup: atm i'm playing this game where you lose all you wear when you die http://www.eveonline.com/
What an awful idea.
Rather than losing everything, because you died trying to play the god-given aspect of the game we know as PVP, why not instead add a stat system. To show you how many duels you have won, and to whom. That way epeeners can be happy, and there is a sense of joy in winning besides **** talk.
raveharu
30-06-2009, 00:31
Rewards is a nono, unless Blizzard announces official PvP tournaments which will be monitored by them.
Reason? I could just purchase 2 copies of D3, use one character to kill the other, and keep getting the rewards.
Technomancer
30-06-2009, 03:25
Blizzard could add some option to bet items in duels
That would be awesome!! I've never been too much into dueling, but if they did that, I would certainly start!
Crumbling Pyramid
18-07-2009, 12:26
You propose a system where you spend a ton of time looting and trading to get ahold of the best gear...but nobody actually uses it because the risk is so great that it's almost never worth it.
You seeing the problem here?
Well, I see what he's saying concerning the 'risk' aspect. Losing the best gear in pvp would certainly sting. I don't know, it's difficult to imagine it being implemented correctly. In order to "loot" to get ahold of the best gear, as you say, some folks would obviously be willing to wager that they WILL win a given fight, hence they will go into it wearing better gear (as preparation merits). If they lose, they lose; it's not like many of us wouldn't have the wherewithal to obtain more.
I totally agree with the premise of the original poster: the sort of thrill of pvp (in HC-type modes or otherwise) has become watered-down and homogenized in current games. I'm not just talking about MMORPGs, though they are a great example. I long for the "frontierism" days of UO, before all the exploitation and cheating. It's too bad something like that can't remain pure forever. There was a real sense of danger when leaving town; if you weren't hunted by powerful monsters, there could be a human-controlled bandit waiting to ambush you just beyond those hills.
I don't know, I guess I'm different. What others might consider 'griefing,' I consider part of the "challenge" of the game. Which might seem like an odd concept at first glance. If I were to hypothetically enter a game in Diablo 3 (with or without companions), and someone took the initiative to go hostile on me, I wouldn't be angry or disappointed in the game. I would take it for what it is - part of the challenge of the game. If it were up to me (and perhaps many of you will be GLAD it isn't), I would have a pvp system that would gradually implement itself as you gained in level (and I'm sure this has been discussed before). Once you reached a certain level, like say between 15 to 30, and then again at 40 to 55, certain servers would become available for you to transfer to on BattleN. Once there, your character cannot be returned to it's native server until a certain amount of pvp battles had been won. Penalties would be harsh for dying (like losing a percentage of xp, gold, and some of your personal possessions - chosen at random), but OH! ...the rewards! Special set items, made from the ears or flesh of other characters, with special bonuses naturally....exponential gold increases for slaying bosses... EXTREMELY rare artifact drops from other PCs or difficult monsters.
Obviously the above would need some idea-tweaking, fine-tuning, or partial ommission, but I think THAT would encourage folks to play on the pvp servers while wearing their hard-earned gear, while everyone else that wants to avoid pvp can. And for those that might whine that it's not fair for pvp-ers to get certain gear that others can't get...well...what's the saying? "Nothing wagered, nothing gained?"
-CP
I certainly like the thrill of having a little adrenaline while you play.
So im with you Konnu.
Kiroptus
19-07-2009, 04:14
Not gonna happen.
Diablo is a casual cooperative ARPG, not a hardcore player-versus-player MMORPG.
So it wont happen, ever.
Knight_Wolf
19-07-2009, 18:13
Blizzard could add some option to bet items in duels, but making everyone loose their gear when they die is horrible.
Agreed, betting items before duels is indeed a very good idea to encourage people to PvP (specially if it is done by an in-game window pre-duel so people don't cheat and refuse to pay the bet if they are defeated).
Gold could be involved as well ... like one side bets 50000 gold which he pays if he loses and the other bets one of his rare items which he loses to his opponenet in case of defeat.
I don't know, I guess I'm different. What others might consider 'griefing,' I consider part of the "challenge" of the game. Which might seem like an odd concept at first glance. If I were to hypothetically enter a game in Diablo 3 (with or without companions), and someone took the initiative to go hostile on me, I wouldn't be angry or disappointed in the game. I would take it for what it is - part of the challenge of the game. If it were up to me (and perhaps many of you will be GLAD it isn't), I would have a pvp system that would gradually implement itself as you gained in level (and I'm sure this has been discussed before).
Yes, you are "different". Diablo is not Counter Strike or Halo. It's a co-operative RPG for which the main purpose is to get a party together, raid dungeons, slay monsters, and collect loot. The PVP aspect of the game is secondary, and should be kept in its place. As the current hostility system stands in Diablo 2, one player can turn any game into a PVP game in an instant by simply pressing the hostile button. Other players in the game, likely playing classes or builds not suited for PVP, are then forced to abandon a quest which they may be pretty far into, or risk getting killed by the person who came in and decided, by himself, on a whim, that the game he entered was now PVP.
Do you see the problem there? In a game where one can simply hostile and say "game on", PVP, the secondary aspect of the game, becomes the primary, and there's nothing the other players can do about it. That is a fundamental flaw which can routinely undermine the purpose for which the game was created, and the only proper course of action to remedy this problem (and it is a problem) is to remove non-consensual hostility.
Crumbling Pyramid
20-07-2009, 04:26
Diablo is not Counter Strike or Halo. It's a co-operative RPG for which the main purpose is to get a party together, raid dungeons, slay monsters, and collect loot. The PVP aspect of the game is secondary, and should be kept in its place.
You are right, of course: Diablo is definately not like Counter Strike or Halo in design intention or execution. Admittedly, I'm glad this is so. The co-op side of Diablo 1/2 is one of the most enjoyable parts of the game for me, and also the reason why I like them. While Counter Strike and Halo (though Halo DOES have a two-player co-op mission mode and a single player story) can be perceived as good examples of entertainment based mainly on a multiplayer, online component, some people would consider this aspect secondary in Halo's case (as I said). BUT, along with that, Diablo 1/2 is NOT a co-op rpg just because you dictate that it is. Some of us enjoy playing a game like Diablo 1/2 for all that it has to offer (including inevitable pvp) not just the singleplayer story or online co-op. Granted this latter aspect will be what I'll be taking part in for the majority of the time, but I would like to see pvp's presence there, and implemented well, so that when the time comes that the single-player and co-op has run its course and has become a chore (pretty much like all RPGs become after 100 + hours of gaming), I can participate in that and squeeze a bit more value out of the experience.
A good example of this would be (for me, anyway) Fallout 3. Like a good many others, I put a ton of time into the singleplayer of that game, and when all was said and done, trudging around the wastes with my badass gear seemed meaningless after all because I'd conquered everything. It would've been great if I could take my char online and duel with someone, or maybe even not "duel" in the sense that most people mean, but simply jump into a game and go crazy with my weapons. :yes:
I wouldn't be there to ruin the experience for anyone else, it IS just a game afterall - an electronic one at that. I understand that some folks are HYPER-sensitive when it comes to games and their characters (which you could very well blame on MMORPGs), but dude, come on, it's still just a game, and it should be enjoyed however a particular person would like.
The way I've described pvp up till now does make it sound secondary, like you mentioned, but in no way do I mean it needs to take a backseat to everything else from a design standpoint. I don't want to speak for you jhtvman, but it sounds to me like you appreciate the diablo series for several reasons including - from a gameplay/mechanics view - single-player or co-op adventuring. Which is totally cool. I like that too, more so than competitive play perhaps, but personally I need both and I need both to be represented strongly. And don't say "Well, then, perhaps Diablo 3 won't be for you." Diablo 1 and 2 both had pvp, and they BOTH (communities) showed a fanatical interest in competitive play/pvp once the novelty of single player/co-op had worn off.
One last aside (I promise): Even the co-op experience of Diablo 1 & 2 had competitive aspects inherent to them, which made it exciting. If you were adventuring with your friends, you would pull your weight and kill monsters and loot stuff. But during boss fights, whoever got in there and looted first (i.e. clicked the fastest) ended up with the good drops. I don't see anything wrong with this. To the victor goes the spoils. This is contrary to many MMORPGS now adays when even that process has become bureacratic/democratized. "Hmmm, I did the most damage to that boss, however, I get what loot is partitioned to me." :thumbup: This kind of mindset is DESTROYING videogames!! End side-rant.
I wouldn't be there to ruin the experience for anyone else, it IS just a game afterall - an electronic one at that. I understand that some folks are HYPER-sensitive when it comes to games and their characters (which you could very well blame on MMORPGs), but dude, come on, it's still just a game, and it should be enjoyed however a particular person would like.
That's actually the main reason I think the way I do about the Diablo series. At the end of the day, video games are just a hobby that you partake in because you find them to be an enjoyable way to pass the time. It's silly to take them very seriously unless you're getting paid to play professionally. As we all know, the PVP side of Diablo is much more intense and demanding than the PVM side due to the human element. Specific gearing, strategy, experience, learning; these elements make you think much more about what you're doing than beating up on the rudimentary game AI.
That's the primary reason I don't PVP much at all in Diablo 2. I know that if I want to have success at it, I've got to invest way more time in it than I otherwise would because I'm up against the fanatics who spend most of their spare time playing Diablo. Like you said, it's still just a game, and in the grand scheme of things it's pretty insignificant. I'm the type of person who logs on, helps friends and sometimes strangers with quests, gets bored after an hour, and logs off. My days of marathon gaming sessions are for the most part well behind me.
Even so, I understand the importance of PVP. It's got a big following in Diablo 2. I have no problem at all with dueling as long as it's done in the right context, i.e. all players involved actually want to be involved. However, non-consensual PK and other forms of griefing don't have any place in a game built around cooperative play. If someone enjoys the thrill of being hunted and trying to outwit the hunter, let them accept that hostility request. If, on the other hand, they wish to be left alone to quest, let them deny that hostility request and go on their merry way. That's all I'm really trying to say.
Knight_Wolf
20-07-2009, 09:02
Do you see the problem there? In a game where one can simply hostile and say "game on", PVP, the secondary aspect of the game, becomes the primary, and there's nothing the other players can do about it. That is a fundamental flaw which can routinely undermine the purpose for which the game was created, and the only proper course of action to remedy this problem (and it is a problem) is to remove non-consensual hostility.
Couldn't have said it better .. that really sums up the problems with PvP in D2.
--------------------------------------
, Diablo 1/2 is NOT a co-op rpg just because you dictate that it is.
Maybe that's right ... maybe because the dev team never gave a damn about making good co-op aspects in D1 and D2 to encourage people to Co-op.
But that's not the case with D3 at all ... the dev team indicated and explicitly said they are building it up from the ground as a Co-op ARPG and designing aspects that make the Co-op fun, fair and worthwhile .... that will be the main focus of D3 ... PvP aspect will still be there .. but like jhtvman said .. a secondary one ... and is meant to stay like that.
A good example of this would be (for me, anyway) Fallout 3. Like a good many others, I put a ton of time into the singleplayer of that game, and when all was said and done, trudging around the wastes with my badass gear seemed meaningless after all because I'd conquered everything.
Maybe if all the monsters evolved with the player leveling up and still gave him a challenge even after he hits max level it could still be worthwhile .. i do remember in Final Fantasy 8 all monsters in the game leveled up with the player to differernt extents so even the low level monsters that appeared at the beginning of the game still put up a good fight later in the game .. even if it didn't make any sense lore wise it was still a nice idea.
I wouldn't be there to ruin the experience for anyone else.
But that's exactly what you just did .. you ruin the experience for other people with things like "log on in a game and go crazy with my weapons on other people who DON'T care about having a PvP fight at the moment or even at all .. and just want to play Co-op" .. it isn't about being hyper sensitive or anything .. many people want to play the game to have a good time and fun .. not to be forced in a corner by overpowered players and get tons of frustration thrown in their faces ..... that's not what a game is made for.
it IS just a game afterall - an electronic one at that. I understand that some folks are HYPER-sensitive when it comes to games and their characters (which you could very well blame on MMORPGs), but dude, come on, it's still just a game, and it should be enjoyed however a particular person would like.
Yeah .. we all know it is a game ... more of a reason why it should be FUN .. not for YOU only but for everyone ... giving someone an option to ruin the game and make it a frustrating experience for others in order to have his OWN fun isn't a good thing in any game whatsoever or of any kind (even a tabletop game).
And don't say "Well, then, perhaps Diablo 3 won't be for you." Diablo 1 and 2 both had pvp, and they BOTH (communities) showed a fanatical interest in competitive play/pvp once the novelty of single player/co-op had worn off.
Sadly that's the case ... there will be PvP in D3 but it won't be the focus of D3 because the Dev team doesn't want it to be so and they think it already casue too much frustration and grieving in D1/2.
Personally i think it's ok as long as it is available as an option .. the community in the end is the determining factor of what's going to make the game last longer (either Co-op or PvP or both).
Oh .. and by the way ... there was really nothing competitive about PvP in D1 or D2 .... it took a large chunk of the game just because of the non-consensual combat but the PvP in D1/2 is very badly designed and isn't fit for any decent competitive activity .. hopefully that will change in D3.
But during boss fights, whoever got in there and looted first (i.e. clicked the fastest) ended up with the good drops. I don't see anything wrong with this. To the victor goes the spoils. This is contrary to many MMORPGS now adays when even that process has become bureacratic/democratized. "Hmmm, I did the most damage to that boss, however, I get what loot is partitioned to me.
It had nothing to do with whoever got first or whoever did more damage .. just who can click faster or who had better connection (or used hacks) .. that is total nonsense ... it is very unfair and destroys any sense of Co-op whatsoever ... sigh ... as if D1/2 didn't already have tons of contradicting design choices.
In D3 everyone gets his share of loot ... but you need to be close to other party members and get involved in the fight in order for something to drop for you ... and actually i think it could be made that whoever did the largest damage gets a better dice roll for the gear or drops (has a better chance of getting good gear than those who did lower damage or no damage at all for the monster) .. that way it would still be fair and at the same time rewards skill in combat.
This kind of mindset is DESTROYING videogames!!
Hmmm .. really .. i could throw that back at you .. but let's leave that for another day :whistling:
Crumbling Pyramid
20-07-2009, 11:01
that's right ... maybe because the dev team never gave a damn about making good co-op aspects in D1 and D2 to encourage people to Co-op.
Your first point is patently false. The devs DID give a damn about making good co-op aspects in D2, it just eventually evolved into something else. Much like yourself, I remember many long hours following D2's release playing co-op and enjoying those design aspects. It's not the dev team's fault that the game eventually took on a more competitive edge. As stated in other threads, MANY folks enjoyed this aspect of the game after the co-op lost it's gloss, and didn't end up moaning about it.
But that's not the case with D3 at all ... the dev team indicated and explicitly said they are building it up from the ground as a Co-op ARPG and designing aspects that make the Co-op fun, fair and worthwhile .... that will be the main focus of D3 ... PvP aspect will still be there .. but like jhtvman said .. a secondary one ... and is meant to stay like that.
Easy enough to cite these words and their intention, right now (as the game is still being made), but we'll see how this plays out a year and a half after d3's release. If pvp is included, you'll see just as much enthusiasm for the RISK and FEAR facets of the game as we have seen previously with D2 (which perhaps persists today). Correct implementation is obviously subjective at this point, but you'd still see the same enthusiasm for it whether pvp is consentual or not. PEOPLE will STILL play and enjoy this game. If anything, I think that many more don't care either way, as long as co-op and pvp are represented strongly and the game is fun.
Maybe if all the monsters evolved with the player leveling up and still gave him a challenge even after he hits max level it could still be worthwhile
Yikes dude! *shakes head* No! I know this idea might sound good here, on these forums, but I'm sure they sounded good at one time to the Oblivion devs too. You want to talk about frustration; do you know how lame it is to work hard and get your character as strong as he can be, only to find out that the lowest level monsters still retain an edge on you? It's like, what's the freaking point? When I level up all the way, I want to level towns, not be some minor creature's whipping boy. I might as well level minimally just so the game plays normally. But, I believe your heart is in the right place. The reality of it is Knight, all games lose their flavor eventually...which was what has been my point about pvp all along. You cannot ebb the flow of boredom by making the co-op/single-player unreasonably challenging for a maxed out player.
But that's exactly what you just did .. you ruin the experience for other people with things like "log on in a game and go crazy with my weapons on other people who DON'T care about having a PvP fight at the moment or even at all .. and just want to play Co-op" .. it isn't about being hyper sensitive or anything .. many people want to play the game to have a good time and fun .. not to be forced in a corner by overpowered players and get tons of frustration thrown in their faces ..... that's not what a game is made for.
Not only did you misquote me here (read what I originally said), but your paraphrase (if I can call it that) misunderstood my point. Clearly, I'm not all about galavanting around into other people's games, killing at will - even though they are having a good time 'grinding it out' - and molesting other people's stuff. This is probably as far from my play style as you can get. What was meant was that the option for "dueling" or what-not remains viable, and shouldn't be stricken from the game (my Fallout 3 reference indicated this). And from my side, I have NO problem with non-consentual combat. If an individual wants to come into my game (if it's not already locked because I'm questing with my friends) and force-attack me, I'm all for it. That's where the risk and fear comes in. It has it's place and is exhillerating (sp?). Chances are I would do my best to smite the foe like I would a monster. And then I would loot his/her corpse blind.
*smacks head against wall* And all this talk about fair, fair, fair....sheesh, sometimes it seems like everyone in the freaking world has lost their competitive nature. What's that saying? A good carpenter never blames his tools. You fight with what you've got. I don't have a T-1 connection and I don't have the fastest comp. If I die from latency or what have you, whatever, it's fine...IT's JUST A GAME. My whole life is not wrapped up in D3 co-op or pvp. Yes, it'll be a fun game, and sure there will be frustrations to be had, but I don't let stuff like that bother me. To be fair, perhaps this is because I haven't encountered a ridiculous amount of "griefing" in my time. I just simply haven't. Almost every game I've played online...sure, there are some A-holes that just like to do mean-spirited things because they think it's funny....but dude, it doesn't bother me and FURTHERMORE, I don't believe it is the devs place to police this kind of crap! They want to make a fun game, people are people and they exploit/screw with stuff. It's freaking inevitable! *sigh* I'm begining to think that folks want games to be safe just like life...go through a game with no real eminent danger...everything is just lollipops and rainbows all the time, and if it isn't, well there should be some kind of PENAL CODE or law suit or something. Because it's all just not fair.
Wow. That's some venting for you. Knight, not all of that was directed at you, brother.
Anyway, I don't think you could assume from anything that I've said that I would want the game to be fun ONLY for me. That's utterly ridiculous. pvp in D 1/2 wasn't designed to be crumbling-pyramid-fun-centric and neither will D3.
Sadly that's the case ... there will be PvP in D3 but it won't be the focus of D3 because....
Agreed. PvP should NOT be the primary focus of D3. I stated that earlier with my response to jhtvman. I think D3 would definately be subpar if it was designed in this manner. Now if pvp grows organically from the original release, I'm all for it!
the Dev team doesn't want it to be so and they think it already casue too much frustration and grieving in D1/2.
I mean no offense, but this is a tad arrogant don't you think? I bet you the original designers (whereever they are now) of D2 are very proud of the finished product, non-consensual pvp and all, and probably could do with a lot less whining and more development capital. They made the game the way they thought would be fun and then sold it via a distributor. They knew everyone would want to play it (since it was post-Diablo afterall) and regardless of what it became, D2 is still a stellar action rpg.
In D3 everyone gets his share of loot ... but you need to be close to other party members and get involved in the fight in order for something to drop for you ... and actually i think it could be made that whoever did the largest damage gets a better dice roll for the gear or drops (has a better chance of getting good gear than those who did lower damage or no damage at all for the monster) .. that way it would still be fair and at the same time rewards skill in combat.
This statement seems pretty WoW-esque. If anything, this loot/drop system seems counter-intuitive to co-op play. For example, your char build is ranged based and you don't seem to get as many hits in as another player. Well, after all is said and done, the other players get good stuff from the drop and you get junk because, as you say, "you need to be close to other party members and get involved in the fight in order for something to drop." I could see this quickly becoming frustrating as well, but hard to tell at this point. Perhaps it would only encourage folks to play D3 on their own on battlenet. Wilson has already said that each class is powerful enough on their own not to rely on others (he used the "mage and barb combo" metaphor). What's to stop most from adventuring on their own to raid dungeons for the best stuff? I could see myself doing that if after awhile of playing I'm not getting anything good because I'm playing with 3 other people (again, don't want to speculate too much).
That's why I think this kind of mindset towards design is destroying video games, knight. So go ahead and try to "throw that back at" me. Diablo 1 has been around forever, limited class choices, frantic loot drops of clicking, non-consensual pvp... all of it. It's been around forever. This new way of looking at loot drops, this supposed "innovation" of WoW and others, is NEW and disturbing. My two cents.
Seriously though, thanks for the thoughtful reply knight. [NOT sarcasm]
Knight_Wolf
20-07-2009, 14:20
Your first point is patently false. The devs DID give a damn about making good co-op aspects in D2, it just eventually evolved into something else. Much like yourself, I remember many long hours following D2's release playing co-op and enjoying those design aspects. It's not the dev team's fault that the game eventually took on a more competitive edge. As stated in other threads, MANY folks enjoyed this aspect of the game after the co-op lost it's gloss, and didn't end up moaning about it.
There was nothing like well designed Co-op aspects in D2 ... Co-op was just there .. thrown like a last minute thought ...... and with tons of other features that detract from Co-op or rather make it comepletely pointless or a horrible experience it is very clear they didn't give a damn about it ... they just throw it there.
DESIGNING a Co-op game is far more than just putting together some co-op mode and letting people bash things together ... the whole game and all its features must work in rhythm and be supportive to that design choice ... that's what DESIGN is ... which isn't the case in D2.
Easy enough to cite these words and their intention, right now (as the game is still being made), but we'll see how this plays out a year and a half after d3's release. If pvp is included, you'll see just as much enthusiasm for the RISK and FEAR facets of the game as we have seen previously with D2 (which perhaps persists today). Correct implementation is obviously subjective at this point, but you'd still see the same enthusiasm for it whether pvp is consentual or not. PEOPLE will STILL play and enjoy this game. If anything, I think that many more don't care either way, as long as co-op and pvp are represented strongly and the game is fun.
It isn't just citing .. it is recognizing the clear design goal of the developers that they emphasized and repeated in their interviews .... of course things could evolve differently from what they expect .. but it is a fact at this point that Diablo 3 is being designed from the core as a Co-op game with all features and design choices supporting that notion ....not a mish mash of contradictory design choices like D2 was.
After they get the Co-op done right .. they will surely see what room is left for making a PvP system that doesn't contradict or ruin the Co-op experience ... and it surely won't have any of the so called RISK and FEAR you mention cause to many and to the D3 devs that translates into frustration and grieving.
do you know how lame it is to work hard and get your character as strong as he can be, only to find out that the lowest level monsters still retain an edge on you? It's like, what's the freaking point? When I level up all the way, I want to level towns, not be some minor creature's whipping boy. I might as well level minimally just so the game plays normally.
Edge on you !!! ... Nope ... i didn't say that ... the low level monsters won't have an edge on you when you level up .. but rather they will put up a good fight ... not just die when you sneeze in their face like they didn't exist (where is the fun in that !!!) .. if the low monsters stay the same way then they might as well not exist at all cause they serve no purpose at the point were the player can wipe them with ZERO effort ... its not fun and it is (i dare say) extremely boring.
FF8 got it right ... for ex. .. the low level flyer bugs you did fight at the beginning of the game were killed with like 10 hits or something ... and damaged you considerably .... later when you are lv.60 ... if they had stayed the same like when you were lv.5 you would just wipe a screen full of them with a single attack ... but no ... they leveled up as well .. surely not like the other stronger monsters but just enough to make your fight with them meaningful and require some effort and thought (i mean if 80% of the monsters in the game die with one hit when you reach a high level .. what the heck is the point of playing anyway after that .. were is the challenge & reward that all games are built around .. does it vanish mid way through the game or something !!!)
But, I believe your heart is in the right place. The reality of it is Knight, all games lose their flavor eventually...which was what has been my point about pvp all along. You cannot ebb the flow of boredom by making the co-op/single-player unreasonably challenging for a maxed out player.
Well .. that's a fact indeed ... doesn't mean we can't make thing more interesting .... take a game like (The Suffering) .. a third person shooter it is .. but its monster design is superb ... how did they keep the low level monsters interesting !!!! ... not only by throwing larger mobs of them and boss version at you later (when you got better and more powerful weapons), but also by throwing monster combinations at you that make you rethink you strategy every time .. that monster alone was easy to kill .. but if it appeared along with other types and in numbers it sure take a lot of skill to deal with such problem (even though they are the same exact low lv. monsters you fought back at the beginning of the game and emptied full pistol clips to kill just one of them)
I'm not all about galavanting around into other people's games, killing at will - even though they are having a good time 'grinding it out' - and molesting other people's stuff. This is probably as far from my play style as you can get. What was meant was that the option for "dueling" or what-not remains viable, and shouldn't be stricken from the game (my Fallout 3 reference indicated this).
Ok you are a saint ... others aren't like that .. they did abuse the system and they did jump into other people's games and kill them with their hi.lv character to annoy them and ruin their game for them making it a horrible and stupid experience .. that's why they non-consensual combat in D2 had to bite the dust.
It is naive to expect everyone to not abuse the system when it has glaring design flaws in it that allow and encourage abuse.
I have NO problem with non-consentual combat. If an individual wants to come into my game (if it's not already locked because I'm questing with my friends) and force-attack me, I'm all for it. That's where the risk and fear comes in. It has it's place and is exhillerating (sp?). Chances are I would do my best to smite the foe like I would a monster. And then I would loot his/her corpse blind.
You have no problem with it others DO have a problem with it ... the real problem here is that you are viewing the matter from an extremely perosnal and (sorry to say that) selfish point of view ... forcing people to lock their games if they don't want to be annoyed by player killers is even worse ... suppose none of my friends has D3 or none of them is online now ... or that i want to quest with new people and make new game buddies .... it is just ridiculous that the player killers get their way easily doing all they wish and the other players who want to enjoy the game without annoying anyone get forced into a corner .... plain stupid design.
*smacks head against wall* And all this talk about fair, fair, fair....sheesh, sometimes it seems like everyone in the freaking world has lost their competitive nature.
I'm pretty sure you got competitive completely wrong .... competitive gaming has nothing to do with D2 ... since it is basically fighting on equal terms and with both sides agreeing to the fight and its conditions ... that's COMPETITIVE .... dragging people into fights they don't want/aren't ready for/not interested in is not competitive in any way, shape or form.
whatever, it's fine...IT's JUST A GAME. My whole life is not wrapped up in D3 co-op or pvp. Yes, it'll be a fun game, and sure there will be frustrations to be had, but I don't let stuff like that bother me. To be fair, perhaps this is because I haven't encountered a ridiculous amount of "griefing" in my time. I just simply haven't. Almost every game I've played online...sure, there are some A-holes that just like to do mean-spirited things because they think it's funny....but dude, it doesn't bother me
But it does bother others ... when all they want is to have a fun and balanced gaming experience only to find frustration and annoyance it totally trashes the point of playing a game to begin with ... people who play in their little free time or weekend and pay from their own money to get a little bit of entertainment and fun deserve better than that .. they deserve a game that's balanced, fair, competitive and above all FUN.
FURTHERMORE, I don't believe it is the devs place to police this kind of crap! They want to make a fun game, people are people and they exploit/screw with stuff. It's freaking inevitable! *sigh* I'm begining to think that folks want games to be safe just like life...go through a game with no real eminent danger...everything is just lollipops and rainbows all the time, and if it isn't, well there should be some kind of PENAL CODE or law suit or something. Because it's all just not fair.
Yeah yeah .. people will exploit anything they can .. more of a reason to give them less chances to exploit the game by removing clearly and obviously abusable aspects.
And nobody mentioned anything about lolipops *aside from being tasty .. munch munch* ... a fair competitive game again is a game that pits two people or more against each other in conditions that both agree on and with clear strict rules (just like sports .. the competition of all competitions)
Besides ... hmmmm .. real life .. SAFE !!!!! ... what kind of real life are you talking about .... people die every second for a thousand reason ... while crossing the road by speeding cars ... being shot by thieves at gun point ... etc etc etc ... studies even show that house hold obejects could cause more injures than any other objects outside one's house .. if anything life isn't safe in anyway.
Actually those who were promoting the non-consensual PVP kept talking about making it dangerous like real life and real hunting ... my advice to them .. go out and hunt some animals on a safari trip if you want some danger XD
Anyway, I don't think you could assume from anything that I've said that I would want the game to be fun ONLY for me. That's utterly ridiculous. pvp in D 1/2 wasn't designed to be crumbling-pyramid-fun-centric and neither will D3.
Ahm ... you make it sound so .. try to put yourself in other people's position to see why they complain and hate the PvP system in D2 and you might get the point of why things are changing in D3 (and why many don't find that RISK and FEAR thing you mention fun in anyway) XD
Agreed. PvP should NOT be the primary focus of D3. I stated that earlier with my response to jhtvman. I think D3 would definately be subpar if it was designed in this manner. Now if pvp grows organically from the original release, I'm all for it!
Agreed :thumbup:
I mean no offense, but this is a tad arrogant don't you think? I bet you the original designers (whereever they are now) of D2 are very proud of the finished product, non-consensual pvp and all, and probably could do with a lot less whining and more development capital. They made the game the way they thought would be fun and then sold it via a distributor. They knew everyone would want to play it (since it was post-Diablo afterall) and regardless of what it became, D2 is still a stellar action rpg.
Sure ... a old man can feel proud about his archaic 1930 car .. but that doesn't mean it is a good car or the best car out there .. even if he can sell it for a 1,000,000 dollars.
Point is .. they already did have complaints against the PvP system in their game ... some people indeed detested the abusable nature and mayhem that infested it .... but the developers didn't listen to those complaints ... leaning in favor of player killers and abusers who like to ruin the game for others .. which is very arrogant .. since it's like "as long as the game is selling we don't care".
It sold !!! .. yes ... a good game !!! ... yes ... has a ton of archaic bad design choices !!! .. hell yeah .. can that be fixed in D3 !!! ... pretty damn sure it has to.
This statement seems pretty WoW-esque. If anything, this loot/drop system seems counter-intuitive to co-op play. For example, your char build is ranged based and you don't seem to get as many hits in as another player. Well, after all is said and done, the other players get good stuff from the drop and you get junk because, as you say, "you need to be close to other party members and get involved in the fight in order for something to drop."
WoW (as in being amazed ... not the game :crazyeyes:) ..... i'm surprised how you turned things around .. but my friend your logic is deeply flawed.
let's lay the cards and look at them carefully ... a side by side example would help greatly.
in D2:
You are ranged ... mostly you are screwed with loot ... you have to fight from a distance and by the time you rush the dead monster your "dear" melee allies (with ninja clicking skills) have already collected everything that is worth it and called you "noob" with a smirk.
Son, you are better off killing stuff on your own :coffee: (which is exactly what happened in D2 for countless people ... that is trashing the Co-op in every way possible)
In D3:
No matter how fast .. slow ... close ... far (Bashiok said the range for party loot drops is very forgiving) .. melee or ranged you are you will be getting a share of the loot .. YOUR fair share ... and you won't know what the others got in their share unless somebody offers trade or throws away his unwanted items.
That's the clear current state of things .. the second part regarding giving better loot for those who inflict more damage was MY suggestion and isn't in D3 ... but i think it will balance things nicely.
Getting less better loot with my suggestion is 200% better than getting no loot at all like in D2 (even though you contributed to killing the monster) just because you are a ranged fighter or have a bad connection ... there is no comparison ... of course if my idea doesn't get to the devs it stands that in D3 things are already 500% better than in D2 .. everybody who sticks close to the party gets loot .. everybody is happy.
Perhaps it would only encourage folks to play D3 on their own on battlenet.
Hahaha .. see above ... that's exactly what the archaic anti-co-op D2 system did ... .. everybody was better off hunting on their own instead of getting their loot stolen by some clicking ninja or someone with a better connection .. or even a melee fighter.
In D3 the larger the killing party the better since monsters will be dying at a slightly higher rate (if not .. more monster will spawn depending on the number of players) .. hence everyone will get more loot.
And don't forget the "better loot drop chance for more damage done" thing is only a suggestion by me .. it is not in the game ... the game now offers everyone in close proximity (a decent range .. maybe a full screen or more) from a dying monster to get individual loot drop from it.
Gotta throw in my 2 cents again:
Level scaling is horrible. Part of the point of leveling up in an RPG is getting to a point when you can basically sneeze and kill 100 monsters in the blink of an eye. If you can never become overwhelmingly powerful, what's the point of leveling and collecting endgame gear? If you're level 90 and a pack of Fallen out in the Blood Moor can actually hurt you, what's the point of everything you just did?
The meat of any good RPG is the leveling process itself, where you face the challenge of enemies that can give your party a run for its money, and act bosses can kill you very easily if you're not careful. This has unfortunately been largely forgotten in Diablo 2, which is so centered around the endgame now that most people don't even know how to play the game anymore. Everyone just gets rushed straight to hell difficulty and runs Chaos or Baal endlessly, and in doing so they miss the best part of the game, which is walking each act with a party, getting by with whatever equipment you can find, and using actual teamwork for difficult act boss battles.
However, you eventually want to reach a point where you can hit any dungeon you want solo and just tear some **** up. But if all the monsters in the game level alongside you, then you're not really accomplishing anything with all the leveling and looting.
Crumbling Pyramid
21-07-2009, 04:12
Level scaling is horrible. Part of the point of leveling up in an RPG is getting to a point when you can basically sneeze and kill 100 monsters in the blink of an eye. If you can never become overwhelmingly powerful, what's the point of leveling and collecting endgame gear? ......However, you eventually want to reach a point where you can hit any dungeon you want solo and just tear some **** up. But if all the monsters in the game level alongside you, then you're not really accomplishing anything with all the leveling and looting.
Words of wisdom jhtvman - this is precisely how I feel. And with judicious implementation, perhaps this is where pvp can pick up the slack when the co-op and soloing get repetitive and go south. To successfully stay on topic, let me add that the risk and fear of co-op and solo slowly fade away as you reach top level, but doesn't have to perish entirely due to pvp fun!
Kiroptus
21-07-2009, 04:24
^Actually PvM coop in Diablo did slowly get more stale as you got stronger but thats because Diablo's coop elements were always badly designed specially with such a bad end game content as baal runs and even more awful balance such as Enigma hammerdins who can robotically solo it on 8ppl hell games.
Hopefully D3 will have a great PVM end game content to make it fun and work for a long time, something that Baal runs never managed to do.
Knight_Wolf
21-07-2009, 18:33
Level scaling is horrible. Part of the point of leveling up in an RPG is getting to a point when you can basically sneeze and kill 100 monsters in the blink of an eye. If you can never become overwhelmingly powerful.
So you are saying that removing challenge from end game is a good thing ... or fun in any way .. i don't think so ... i played many RPGs and the worst part is always when you get everything and hit highest level since there is no challenge or any meaningful thing left to do.
what's the point of leveling and collecting endgame gear? If you're level 90 and a pack of Fallen out in the Blood Moor can actually hurt you, what's the point of everything you just did?
What's the point you ask ... the point is being able to fight stronger monsters you couldn't fight before and being able to enter dungeons/locations/areas you couldn't survive in or search before ... that's the point.
The meat of any good RPG is the leveling process itself, where you face the challenge of enemies that can give your party a run for its money, and act bosses can kill you very easily if you're not careful. This has unfortunately been largely forgotten in Diablo 2, which is so centered around the endgame now that most people don't even know how to play the game anymore. Everyone just gets rushed straight to hell difficulty and runs Chaos or Baal endlessly, and in doing so they miss the best part of the game, which is walking each act with a party, getting by with whatever equipment you can find, and using actual teamwork for difficult act boss battles.
Actually D2 missed both .. the journey (since it can all be skipped or you can level up from lv.1 to lv.98 in a day or two) and the end game (since all that's left there is doing endless boss runs) ... both degenerated after few years of D2 release.
But if all the monsters in the game level alongside you, then you're not really accomplishing anything with all the leveling and looting.
You are accomplishing a lot by looting and leveling up ... being able to progress in the game world .. explore new areas .. fight new monsters you couldn't fight before ... etc etc etc
Just because old/weak monsters level up with you doesn't mean their leveling up scales 1:1 to your leveling up .. no way that would make sense .. you will still feel you are evolving because of many other reasons (more items, more skills, more stats, being able to enter new areas, fight new tougher monsters .. etc etc)
Example:
Older/Weaker monsters level up more ... like fallen leveling up from lv.10 ro lv.40 when the player reaches lv.80 .. while lv.90 monsters you will fight later won't need to level up much cause they are already hi-level monsters.
Player at C.lv 1
-Fallen are between lv.5 and 10
-They have 50 to 60 HP and do 5 to 8 damage
Player at C.lv 80
-Fallen are between lv.40 and 50
-They have 200 to 350 HP and do 15 to 20 damage
They DON'T pose a threat to a lv.80 character .. but will still put up a good fight and will work as a distraction for the player while he fights the other new and strong monsters who are lv.70 and above .. that keeps the game challenging through out and even till you hit MAX level.
At that point you can fight any monster in the game but still none of them are pushovers or worthless.
So you are saying that removing challenge from end game is a good thing ... or fun in any way .. i don't think so ... i played many RPGs and the worst part is always when you get everything and hit highest level since there is no challenge or any meaningful thing left to do.
Yes, reaching a point in the endgame where nothing can challenge you anymore is a good thing, because it shows that you've reached the end of the game. You've killed everything, leveled up pretty much all the way, and collected the loot. There's no further use in playing the game once you hit that point. You've reached the top of the mountain and conquered it all. From there, you either venture into dueling or you start a new character. Why would you go back and fight Super Fallen in the Blood Moor? Furthermore, why should they be anything except pitiful little punching bags if you're level 90 or whatever?
I'll put it this way. Say you're playing through Hell Difficulty at level 70 and you're running the Chaos Sanctuary. You can do it, but it's tough. Fast forward a few weeks and you're level 88. You've been running Baal a while, gotten your hands on some much better gear, so you decide to go back and run the Chaos Sanctuary again, and find that because the enemies there have level scaled to match you, it's just as tough as it was the first time. If that's the case, why bother leveling up more and getting better gear?
So you are saying that removing challenge from end game is a good thing ... or fun in any way .. i don't think so ... i played many RPGs and the worst part is always when you get everything and hit highest level since there is no challenge or any meaningful thing left to do.Putting false words in one's mouth is the best way to discuss :)
I'm going to have to go with jhtvman. End game represents how powerful you are. Easily killing the weak monsters illustrates this.
Scaling would be neat in some regard as a challenge factor, but not going with that does not in any way mean that it removes fun from the game, or that the person does not want fun in D3.
Knight_Wolf
22-07-2009, 19:02
Putting false words in one's mouth is the best way to discuss :)
No at all, he said it himself ... he wants end game devoid of challenge .. which basically equals nothing to do and no fun.
Yes, reaching a point in the endgame where nothing can challenge you anymore is a good thing
Sadly that's your definition of end game .. and i have to totally disagree that this is what end game means ... endgame for me means that i have visited most of the game areas ... gotten some great gear ... acquired a lot of skills and hit a very high level (85-99).
For me that's the start of a new phase .. it's about time to USE that character in something that involves some skill and utilization of all the items and skills i collected during the journey of building up the character (i.e like a survivial mode that keeps increasing in difficulty to insane levels) or a thousand more things like re-exploring the world to find well hidden secret dungeons or secret bosses that require lots of skill and understanding of ones character skills and built to beat.
PvP is only a very small position of what End game is to me ... just because it was that way in D2 doesn't mean it is the only way to make a good interesting and challenging end game.
The difference between us is that i want to use the character i put effort in building and understanding for something interesting and you want to put it aside and start a new one cause you enjoy the building process more ... the game should offer BOTH types of people something to chew on.
No at all, he said it himself ... he wants end game devoid of challenge .. which basically equals nothing to do and no fun.If the game has the same difficulty throughout, the game is stagnant and there is no incentive to get to the end game, which doesn't exist. Instead, it's the same pvm grind as if you were untwinked. Even with godly gear, you're no better than someone with a cracked hand axe in the moor.
That is what I'd like avoided, but you are proposing. When you are in an area, level up, maybe find a cool unique you need, but the monsters get stronger and everything's still as hard, what's the point in leveling to over come that monster or mob? That removes fun, not introduces it. The game is always the same, no diversity, no way to just run over weak monsters with ease. It becomes boring.
Sadly that's your definition of end game .. and i have to totally disagree that this is what end game means ... endgame for me means that i have visited most of the game areas ... gotten some great gear ... acquired a lot of skills and hit a very high level (85-99).So why get all that if it accomplishes absolutely nothing for pvm? End game also refers to pvp, which gear is needed. If you can't use previously great gear to get more and instead have to grind like crazy, you can't acheive this as quickly.
More time is great, but when you want that godly gear, and have it end up not helping at all, one would be more disappointed than think that it's fun to have status quo where every monster is a struggle.
For me that's the start of a new phase .. it's about time to USE that character in something that involves some skill and utilization of all the items and skills i collected during the journey of building up the character (i.e like a survivial mode that keeps increasing in difficulty to insane levels) or a thousand more things like re-exploring the world to find well hidden secret dungeons or secret bosses that require lots of skill and understanding of ones character skills and built to beat.Or you could use that char to help with building other chars. But, in a system where monsters scale, twinked vs untwinked no longer matters and all monsters are the same difficulty. So, what'd be the point in twinked? Or even playing?
PvP is only a very small position of what End game is to me ... just because it was that way in D2 doesn't mean it is the only way to make a good interesting and challenging end game.Then, let's not push your definition via misrepresenting others and their opinions?
Stagnant games do not equal fun to me. I'd rather be proud I got to end game and had a great char than have a great char that performs the same as a level one. ><
The difference between us is that i want to use the character i put effort in building and understanding for something interesting and you want to put it aside and start a new one cause you enjoy the building process more ... the game should offer BOTH types of people something to chew on.Again, you just assume what he wants without any idea.
If he wants to remake a char and try another build, who cares? That has nothing to do with scaling monsters.
If he wants to use that char to find what gear there is, still explore and stuff like that, why struggle 24/7 while equipped with godly gear? If I got to the point where I've done all content, I'd still experiment on monsters, what they drop, what they do, who's random, what super uniques there are, etc. When I've beaten Baal (or BBEG) and go back into the moor, I'm not going to want a fallen to be the same power level as Baal :S
Knight_Wolf
24-07-2009, 00:59
I'm not going to want a fallen to be the same power level as Baal :S
I was planning to reply but after reading this final line i changed my mind about replying ... it seems you have a problem with text comprehension skills (put more points in them :crazyeyes:)
They DON'T pose a threat to a lv.80 character .. but will still put up a good fight and will work as a distraction for the player while he fights the other new and strong monsters who are lv.70 and above .. that keeps the game challenging through out and even till you hit MAX level.
Just because old/weak monsters level up with you doesn't mean their leveling up scales 1:1 to your leveling up
What's so hard to understand about these sentences ... you just seem to have a solidified idea that scaling/evolving monsters MUST scale/evolve 1:1 with each other and with the player .. where the hell did i say anything that even remotely indicates that Fallen will even be close to Baal if the evolve up or do you just like meaningless exaggeration ... sigh .. never mind .. this is a waste of time. :coffee:
Hey ... somebody put the topic back on track. *points at title* -> risk and fear in PVP
I was planning to reply but after reading this final line i changed my mind about replying ... it seems you have a problem with text comprehension skills (put more points in them )That was just an exaggeration, but not unlikely to happen (to some degree) with scaling. By all means, ignore the rest though. :) It kinda went something along the lines of not putting words in people's mouths.
What's so hard to understand about these sentences ... you just seem to have a solidified idea that scaling/evolving monsters MUST scale/evolve 1:1 with each other and with the player .. where the hell did i say anything that even remotely indicates that Fallen will even be close to Baal if the evolve up or do you just like meaningless exaggeration ... sigh .. never mind .. this is a waste of time.If they don't scale accordingly, then they're still weak. What'd be the point in scaling if they pose no threat? It'd end up identical to the system d2 uses. That didn't seem like what you were proposing.
Hey ... somebody put the topic back on track. *points at title* -> risk and fear in PVPSry, had to call out on the fallacy. It's tantamount to ad hominem. My bad.
Knight_Wolf
24-07-2009, 15:10
That was just an exaggeration, but not unlikely to happen (to some degree) with scaling. By all means, ignore the rest though. :) It kinda went something along the lines of not putting words in people's mouths.
putting words in people's mouths.
putting words in people's mouths.
putting words in people's mouths.
Haha .. keep repeating this over and over .. it is starting to sound petty ... not really the best way to get around arguments .. is it.
As for Fallen becoming equal to BAAL ... Fallen can become stronger without that happening if the game designer wants .. but you seem to have already set your mind that it MUST happen ... yeah there is no way to make fallen more powerful but not equally as powerful as BAAL .. because monster scaling is evil and random evolution-esque phenomena that no one can control ... oh my god.
If they don't scale accordingly, then they're still weak. What'd be the point in scaling if they pose no threat? It'd end up identical to the system d2 uses. That didn't seem like what you were proposing.
Yeah .. cause everything is BLACK & WHITE ... there is no possible way to make Fallen just grow to become powerful enough to distract the player while he fights the other really powerful threatening monsters ... yeah .. no possible way.
Sry, had to call out on the fallacy. It's tantamount to ad hominem. My bad.
Fallacy ... O RLY
You keep saying over and over .. what's the point of leveling up if monsters scale !!! ... what's the point of leveling up if monsters scale !!! .. most simple answer even a 10 year's old kid will say is being able to fight stronger monsters you COULDN'T fight before and enter places you couldn't enter before .. etc etc ... sounds familiar .. huh.
"the point is being able to fight stronger monsters you couldn't fight before and being able to enter dungeons/locations/areas you couldn't survive in or search before ... that's the point."
(more items, more skills, more stats, being able to enter new areas, fight new tougher monsters .. etc etc)
I give a clear sharp answer and yet you keep repeating the same petty question over and over ... sigh ... being accused of fallacy by someone lacking proper text comprehensions skills is really mind numbing XD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply with all the fallacy and ad hominem accusations you want ... you simple can't dodge the simple fact that monster scaling works just fine and has been implemented in other RPG games successfully ... you just can't stand it for some reason ... well .. whatever.
Since this is very close to growing into a cross fire flaming fight i will withdraw for the best of the topic (which was derailed) and to save my own limited free time.
Merely pointed out a very obvious flaw (some what of a pet-peeve) . ><
As for Fallen becoming equal to BAAL ... Fallen can become stronger without that happening if the game designer wants .. but you seem to have already set your mind that it MUST happen ... yeah there is no way to make fallen more powerful but not equally as powerful as BAAL .. because monster scaling is evil and random evolution-esque phenomena that no one can control ... oh my god.I'd hoped the silly emote would indicate I wasn't serious. Sorry you didn't read it correctly.
I didn't honestly believe a minion would rival an end boss, but with scaling, he would at least compare somewhat to his minions. Alternatively, such a fallen would be child's play compared to say a Baal's Minion on the foothills.
Yeah .. cause everything is BLACK & WHITE ... there is no possible way to make Fallen just grow to become powerful enough to distract the player while he fights the other really powerful threatening monsters ... yeah .. no possible way. Sorry you feel that way, but that's not what I'd like.
Oh wait, you were sarcastic. Others can be sarcastic too (usually an emote works, but not in my case :( )
I give a clear sharp answer and yet you keep repeating the same petty question over and over ... sigh ... being accused of fallacy by someone lacking proper text comprehensions skills is really mind numbing XDNot wanting a monster to scale in difficulty along with the player does not mean no fun. I for one do not want scaling, yet want fun. Explanation? Simple; scaling is not going to be fun for me. Not all must conform to your desire, nor even to mine. But saying people of similar mind to me do not want fun is absurd.
Reply with all the fallacy and ad hominem accusations you want ... you simple can't dodge the simple fact that monster scaling works just fine and has been implemented in other RPG games successfully ... you just can't stand it for some reason ... well .. whatever.I only mentioned the strawman attempt because it didn't represent what I did / did not want from D3. Instead of not wanting fun, I don't what that kind of "fun".
But, yes to the working in others. In Golden Sun I kinda liked it (and if I could find it again, I'd still work on leveling). Then again, it was all PvM. In D2 (and soon in D3) my end game will focus on pvp. However, I don't want my monsters to all be similar. I'd want the weaklings to still be weak if I surpass them in level and obtain great gear. It adds a feeling of accomplishment that I enjoy.
Since this is very close to growing into a cross fire flaming fight i will withdraw for the best of the topic (which was derailed) and to save my own limited free time.It's only going to seem that way if you misread my comments. I just couldn't help letting it pass by while someone says I don't want fun in my game because I want some monsters to stay weak. Although not directed solely at me, it is still wrong to assume that.
Nevertheless, feelings seem to be hurt, or at least feathers are ruffled. I'm not going to debate it further. I want fun, but I don't want scaling.
Level scaling doesn't necessarily kill the fun of a game, but I think it definitely reduces it. For example, Oblivion is one of the best RPGs I've ever played and it's level scaled, but I find it sort of ridiculous that I can level into the low-mid 40s (it's very difficult to level past 50 in that game due to the leveling system) but I still have to really dish out some serious punishment in order to kill some of the tougher monsters like Ogres and Minotaur Lords. If I'm supposed to be some kind of conquering champion who singlehandedly won a war against a Daedric god and his armies, then monsters and animals in the wilderness, even the big and tough ones, should fall before me as though they were mud crabs and rats.
Same concept applies to Diablo as far as I'm concerned. If I'm supposed to be a legendary warrior who defeated the three greatest evils in the universe myself, then no common monster, even a tough one, has any business being a challenge for me.
But, yes to the working in others. In Golden Sun I kinda liked it (and if I could find it again, I'd still work on leveling). Then again, it was all PvM. In D2 (and soon in D3) my end game will focus on pvp. However, I don't want my monsters to all be similar. I'd want the weaklings to still be weak if I surpass them in level and obtain great gear. It adds a feeling of accomplishment that I enjoy.
It's only going to seem that way if you misread my comments. I just couldn't help letting it pass by while someone says I don't want fun in my game because I want some monsters to stay weak. Although not directed solely at me, it is still wrong to assume that.
Nevertheless, feelings seem to be hurt, or at least feathers are ruffled. I'm not going to debate it further. I want fun, but I don't want scaling.
Knight's only contention is that ONE possible way to prolong the PvM/RPG leveling mechanics of this particular game would be to implement monster level scaling (broad idea; not a narrow one confined to certain ratios).
This mechanic as you stated has already been proven exceedingly effective in games such as you mentioned: the Final Fantasy franchise, and Golden Sun franchise (which is one of the best RPG's I can remember playing).
Conclusion: Monster scaling is a excellent and very effective tool (regardless of personal opinions voting yea or nay) to accomplish an increased longevity in the PvM side of an RPG; as proven by brilliantly successful preceeding RPG franchises.
You (Sass) continue to defend your use of sarcasm and exaggeration in all your previous posts. The simple fact is that you used SOOOOO much exaggeration AND sarcasm in all your posts that it was pretty much impossible to tell which posts were which.
This results in two possible outcomes. A) You're a blubbering, drooling retard because you managed to read all of Knight's posts and totally miss the whole point of them. Then proceeded to compose lengthy response posts debating absolutely NOTHING of what Knight actually said. For further clarification on this see the definition of NOTHING, synonyms: empty, devoid, vacum.
or
B) You're an absolute fool who shouldn't be allowed to participate in intelligent discussions about complicated game design because you lack the sufficient skills to communicate your (real) opinions in any intelligible way. As hard as it may be for you to understand. We cannot decipher the unfiltered transposition of your fantasy world onto these forums (see endless exaggeration and sarcasm for more clarification).
After what? 3 pages of a flame war. You finally managed to say "I want fun, but I don't want scaling." A personal opinion which you are entitled to have but which did not require the unintelligible and retarded blabbering with which you decided to preceed that statement.
Uncle_Mike
10-08-2009, 14:32
Do not insult other members. Even if you disagree with someone you can word things in a more civil manner.
This post has earned Aktzini an infraction.
The first thing I'd said was that scaling would not equal fun, and that I was not against fun by being against scaling.
Hi!
And back to the topic...
The bidding system sounds great at start, but this will end up being the same jackassery than alot other things. If you want to duel for lets say games 2nd best weapon and you toss in 2nd best armor for the bid. For every player that is willing to put the 2nd best weapon on the bid there is 10.000 people that accepts the challenge and tries to offer a rotten carrot. This essentially means you are sitting around trying to get someone to accept it and having to cancel every time some jackass tries to spam the rotten carrot.
The problem also is that this is not an MMO. You pretty much would need to set up these in chat beforehand or the game had some NPC that takes in offers and then matches the players for itemlevel and such. The problem then is that people might end up facing enemies they have no chanche of winning and thus wouldn't want it. System also would need to be pretty simple to use so people would use it.
IMHO best way would be to set up a chat room for this kind of thing and ban the people of rotten carrot. This could be ingame or in irc. The problem then is that how the transition happens... Maybe it would be best to have ingame duel challenge and you could put items/gold for prize. The games would be mainly set up on chat rooms.
In the end i think best way to implement this would be the basic in game duel with another in the same game and then you could put stuff in line. Those who would want to set up good duels for this could do it in chat rooms that ban the trolls.
Cormac McArt
13-08-2009, 15:18
I think it will take Diablo 5 for what you want to take place. I can't imagine that Blizzard officials will browse all day DIII.Net for wish-lists ...
StrikexForce
25-09-2009, 21:39
i think battle.net should implement a stat tracker, telling how many pvp kills and deaths you have. that would be cool.
as for dropping all your gear when you die in pvp...complete fail of an idea.
Damn, I was on page 3, already thinking up my comparison of level scaling to TES IV: Oblivion. Then Jhtvman nailed it.
Level scaling doesn't necessarily kill the fun of a game, but I think it definitely reduces it. For example, Oblivion is one of the best RPGs I've ever played and it's level scaled, but I find it sort of ridiculous that I can level into the low-mid 40s (it's very difficult to level past 50 in that game due to the leveling system) but I still have to really dish out some serious punishment in order to kill some of the tougher monsters like Ogres and Minotaur Lords. If I'm supposed to be some kind of conquering champion who singlehandedly won a war against a Daedric god and his armies, then monsters and animals in the wilderness, even the big and tough ones, should fall before me as though they were mud crabs and rats.
This is the reason I still like Morrowind better, but that's beside the point.
The point is that leveling up and getting better gear just to find out your killing speed hasn't changed, nothing has really changed except the enemies look scarier... it's just kind of stupid.
What incentive is there to level up and get great gear if you aren't rewarded by a stronger character?
Knight_Wolf
26-09-2009, 00:23
The point is that leveling up and getting better gear just to find out your killing speed hasn't changed, nothing has really changed except the enemies look scarier... it's just kind of stupid.
What incentive is there to level up and get great gear if you aren't rewarded by a stronger character?
Well, back ^_^
Thanks for the support Aktzini.
As said, there are many examples to monster scaling that work and don't don't reduce the fun of the game one bit .. rather keep them challenging and more fun.
The main problem here is that those who are saying things like this
What incentive is there to level up and get great gear if you aren't rewarded by a stronger character?
Not everything is BLACK or WHITE ... that's just too extreme, there are like i said example of monster scaling in many extremely successful RPGs and they freaking work .... that's proof enough that the idea has lots of potential.
As for the "getting a stronger character" .. you are getting stronger indeed .. how the hell were you became able to beat that lv.50 monster you couldn't touch before .. how were you able to survive in this dungeon which you couldn't last in for 1 min .. i'm waiting to hear a valid logical answer.
As for how monster scale .. there are tons of ways to do it and still keep the feeling you are getting stronger, like i said low level monsters becoming better doesn't equal them becoming a threat for your lv.80 character .. remember it isn't all freaking black or white, you are just exaggerating and jumping between extremes ... they will just require you to do some effort to get them off your back but that's more interesting and fun than just walking by them as if they don't exist .. which is extremely boring.
Imagine playing on God mode (an extreme example but very close) is there any challenge ... is there any fun ... i don't think so .. the furthest i got into any game after trying God mode cheat was 5 mins .. because there is zero challenge and zero fun .. it is extremely boring as is every game without any challenge or difficulty.
And for a game that isn't an MMO reaching the end game leads to a very similar case to the God Mode situation .. no more challenge and no more difficulty of any kind .. claiming that this is fun is very ridiculous and unsupported claim ... yes you can start a new character .. but how many times you will do that before starting to get bored of all the classes and builds .. not too long since the game content it limited.
But with scaling monster difficulty each play through is going to be much more involving and much more challenging .. even when your character is at max level you can still have a hard time fighting a mix of leveled up medium level and high level monsters .. the thrill of being in danger all the time .. overcoming challenges continuously .. that's fun .. becoming invincible or immune to all sort of dangers is boring and not much different from activating a god mode (not to mention makes rushing extremely easy, boss runs and framing as well .. which are all exploits that cheapen the game experience too much)
The first thing I'd said was that scaling would not equal fun, and that I was not against fun by being against scaling.
Funny thing is that you haven't provided anything logical to support your claim that Scaling doesn't equal fun .. thus any statements based on that claim aren't valid .. including "that you aren't against fun by being against scaling" .. as scaling proved to be lots of fun in many very worldwide successful RPGs .. FF8 .. FF:tactics .. Golden Sun .. etc etc .. it freaking works and it adds lots of value if done right.
Cormac McArt
26-09-2009, 09:56
Fear, which to lead to more Conscious Play, may be achieved by making the way from Death to Corpse-Retrieving/Resurrection Longer and/or Harder.
By the way, I just thought of Humiliation-/Mutilation Element - The Ear Drop? ^^
Not everything is BLACK or WHITE ... that's just too extreme, there are like i said example of monster scaling in many extremely successful RPGs and they freaking work .... that's proof enough that the idea has lots of potential.
What "works" is not always what's best.
As for the "getting a stronger character" .. you are getting stronger indeed .. how the hell were you became able to beat that lv.50 monster you couldn't touch before .. how were you able to survive in this dungeon which you couldn't last in for 1 min .. i'm waiting to hear a valid logical answer.
It's pretty simple. That lvl 50 dungeon you "couldn't touch before" may as well have not existed because you didn't get there until you had leveled up high enough to stand a chance.
What you just described is the exact opposite of what happens in level scaled games. The other side of level scaling is that not only do lower level monsters continually get stronger so that you can't kill them easily, but higher level monsters are brought down to your level so that you don't run into a situation where you just get obliterated without even the remotest chance of victory.
Since the Oblivion has been brought up already, I'll use it again. You can beat all of Oblivion at level 1 if you want. You can choose to never sleep and just play through the entire main quest line and it'll be easy. Daedra will spawn in their lowest and weakest form, human enemies will have low levels and crappy equipment. But let's say you level up to 35 before you decide to start the main quest. You're not going to encounter those crappy weak enemies anymore. It's going to be all big tough baddies that will give you more of a run for your money.
There's an obvious problem there. If the difficulty remains constant throughout the entire game, there's no point in leveling. All those new skills you get serve no purpose other than to look flashy, because they're not actually helping you kill faster.
remember it isn't all freaking black or white, you are just exaggerating and jumping between extremes ... they will just require you to do some effort to get them off your back but that's more interesting and fun than just walking by them as if they don't exist .. which is extremely boring
And for a game that isn't an MMO reaching the end game leads to a very similar case to the God Mode situation .. no more challenge and no more difficulty of any kind .. claiming that this is fun is very ridiculous and unsupported claim ... yes you can start a new character .. but how many times you will do that before starting to get bored of all the classes and builds .. not too long since the game content it limited.
But with scaling monster difficulty each play through is going to be much more involving and much more challenging .. even when your character is at max level you can still have a hard time fighting a mix of leveled up medium level and high level monsters .. the thrill of being in danger all the time .. overcoming challenges continuously .. that's fun .. becoming invincible or immune to all sort of dangers is boring and not much different from activating a god mode
No, I'll tell you what's boring: a game where you're essentially having the same experience from level 1 to 99, which is what level scaling does. Part of the experience of nearly every RPG I've ever played is achieving that godlike status. And yeah, it gets boring after a while, but how does that make it any different than literally every other video game in the history of mankind? They all get stale once you've been playing them for long enough. But you know what? It's fun maintaining a character of ridiculous power for a while.
What's the point of leveling up to 90 if you're still facing the same challenges you did when you were level 65? The only answer is that there is none. A level scaled system provides zero incentive to level up except to look at fancier and flashier skills that are no better in combat than the simpler ones you had earlier.
The fundamental difference here is that you seem to equate boredom with a lack of challenge, and I equate boredom with a lack of change.
delosombres
26-09-2009, 15:03
Not everything is BLACK or WHITE ... that's just too extreme, there are like i said example of monster scaling in many extremely successful RPGs and they freaking work .... that's proof enough that the idea has lots of potential.
Can you point out exactly what RPGs? I hope you don't mean scaling system in Oblivon or Hellgate London...
Level scaling is imho one of the worst ideas that can be implemented to a RPG. By level scaling i mean where the same type of monster grow stronger with player (difficulty settings or various monster subtypes are ok). I don't mind random level/HP/gear limits. Something like Fallen level 1-3/HP 20-30 and then Fallen Berserker (must be different looking creature with different attacks/gear or it's boring) with level 4-7/HP 70-120.
But if my character is level 3, can take Fallen level 3 in 2 hits and then he grows to level 15, collects better gear and still needs 2 hits to kill ordinary Fallen which is level 15... lol. That's the way how it works in Oblivion and Hellgate. Dumb.
Various monster types, locations or difficulties will always be better solution than level scaling.
Knight_Wolf
26-09-2009, 17:03
Can you point out exactly what RPGs? I hope you don't mean scaling system in Oblivon or Hellgate London..
I did mention FF8, FF tactics and Golden Sun, you weren't paying attention.
Level scaling is imho one of the worst ideas
Baseless assumption, judging by the success those games above achieved (and how they got the system done right) the system didn't make them any less fun .. it made them much more satisfying and challenging.
But if my character is level 3, can take Fallen level 3 in 2 hits and then he grows to level 15, collects better gear and still needs 2 hits to kill ordinary Fallen which is level 15... lol. That's the way how it works in Oblivion and Hellgate. Dumb.
What's silly is making extreme examples that are molded to fit your extreme negative view of the system.
A fallen won't really be enough to show how the system work.
Let's take a monster that say would take 25 hits to kill when you are lv.10, normally if there is no monster scaling by lv.60 you might be able to kill with with 2 or 3 hits .. and later at lv.80 with 1 hit ... but with monster scaling it could require 10 or 12 hit to kill it by level 60 and 8 or 6 hits to kill it by lv.80 .. it isn't the same .. but keeps the monsters challenging and fun to fight throughout the whole game.
Various monster types, locations or difficulties will always be better solution than level scaling.
Both are used in all the aforementioned games .. these two monster systems aren't meant to replace each other in anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What "works" is not always what's best.
And ?
It's pretty simple. That lvl 50 dungeon you "couldn't touch before" may as well have not existed because you didn't get there until you had leveled up high enough to stand a chance.
Well, it does exist, and you can reach it and get your butt kicked there by monsters you can't touch becasue you are WEAK .... level up .. come back later and pay them back and you will feel better and stronger ... problem solved.
What you just described is the exact opposite of what happens in level scaled games. The other side of level scaling is that not only do lower level monsters continually get stronger so that you can't kill them easily, but higher level monsters are brought down to your level so that you don't run into a situation where you just get obliterated without even the remotest chance of victory.
That never happened in any of the games with monster scaling i played, none of them brought down the level of any high.lv monsters to my level .. only the monsters below your level scale with you.
For example, the monster scaling in Final Fantasy Tactics makes all the battles tense and exciting .. you can very well get obliterated from early battles if get slacky ... and later on all the monsters level up with you so even a simple grinding battle (not an important or boss one) can be extremely hard and keeps you on the edge of your seat .. you could simply get kicked in the face at any moment if you aren't paying attention .... i.e constant danger ... that's what's fun and exciting and engaging .. not beating hundreds of weak dump lv.3 monsters who can't even scratch you.
Way to go judging all "monster scaling" systems based on one bad implementation ... .. yeah becasue there is only one way to implement it and it is bad ... very very objective indeed. /sarcasm :scratchchin:
Since the Oblivion has been brought up already, I'll use it again. You can beat all of Oblivion at level 1 if you want. You can choose to never sleep and just play through the entire main quest line and it'll be easy. Daedra will spawn in their lowest and weakest form, human enemies will have low levels and crappy equipment. But let's say you level up to 35 before you decide to start the main quest. You're not going to encounter those crappy weak enemies anymore. It's going to be all big tough baddies that will give you more of a run for your money.
That's a very bad and extremely crappy implementation ... like i said .. there are many ways to implement it that actually work and make the game much more challenging and exciting.
There's an obvious problem there. If the difficulty remains constant throughout the entire game, there's no point in leveling. All those new skills you get serve no purpose other than to look flashy, because they're not actually helping you kill faster.
Not true, you can kill old monsters faster (even if FF tactics .. the leveled up monsters are still weaker than the new hi-level monsters) .. but not wipe entire screens clean of them with ZERO resistance ... it can be made so that they level up to achieve that effect easily (again it is not all extremes and black or white) ... besides .. skills aren't all about Damage .. many serve different purposes (buffs, debuffs, summons, .. etc etc etc)
As for difficulty .. even with monster scaling it isn't constant .. the more you play the game the more you understand the game ... and the more you figure out the best weapon/skill/gear combinations the easier the game will get .. but you will still have to earn your victories .. not have them handed over to you on a silver plate.
A level scaled system provides zero incentive to level up except to look at fancier and flashier skills that are no better in combat than the simpler ones you had earlier.
Total nonsense, you need to level up to be able to progress, fight stronger monsters you couldn't fight before and enter dungeons you couldn't enter before .. how many times do i have to repeat that in order for people to understand it .. it isn't rocket science really.
The fundamental difference here is that you seem to equate boredom with a lack of challenge, and I equate boredom with a lack of change.
Lack of challenge is much more boring, and it has lack of change within it as well .. once you hit max level everything becomes the same .. and all challenge is removed from the game .. and games are meant as a challenge from the very beginning .. from Tetris to Crysis it is all about constant challenges and the joy of overcoming them before being face more challenges constantly.
If something is challenging, exciting and engaging there is no need to change it .. but if there is a game devoid of any challenge at some point .. the only thing to do is change it becasue it is no longer a game anymore ... but more like an animated story book devoid of any challenge or struggle
I advice you to go read some retro super heroes comic books if you want your godly untouchable heroes.
----------------------------------------------
Basically all the arguments i hear are "There can only be one way to do monster scaling, and it is bad .. so monster scaling is inherently bad" .. which is total nonsense becasue there are many successful examples of well made, well thought out monster scaling systems ... kinda makes that argument a baseless meaningless one.
My job is done here ... the subject has already been side tracked so much that an on-topic comment like Cormac McArt's feels out-of-topic even though it is really the only on topic comment from few pages.
On Topic:-
I think a great idea in HC PvP is to be able to loot the dead players in duels or those who die from monsters ... this will create a nice sense of achievement for those who win duels in HC.
delosombres
26-09-2009, 20:19
What's silly is making extreme examples that are molded to fit your extreme negative view of the system.
I smell fallacy, Knight_Wolf. You obviously failed to get my point. I made assumptions based on my experience in these games i've played. I've explicitly said what i mean by level scaling and made an examples that exists in these games. These were no some extreme examples, these were facts, so stop this crap please.
FF8, FF tactics and Golden Sun"
I have never played these games so i'm not able to judge if you're right or not about them having level scaling well implemented. It is just your opinion. Your opinion and the fact, that these games are successul doesn't prove that level scaling is a generally good option in RPG. Besides, there is a lot of people that don't like JRPG combat systems and leveling. I know a few guys that do like stories in JRPGs but not the combat. For some people it's just boring (there is often a lot of grinding). I know it hurts maybe, but that's a fact no matter if you like it or not.
Let's take a monster that say would take 25 hits to kill when you are lv.10, normally if there is no monster scaling by lv.60 you might be able to kill with with 2 or 3 hits .. and later at lv.80 with 1 hit ... but with monster scaling it could require 10 or 12 hit to kill it by level 60 and 8 or 6 hits to kill it by lv.80 .. it isn't the same .. but keeps the monsters challenging and fun to fight throughout the whole game.
So....
- Level 10 character vs. monster level 10 = 25 hits.
- Level 60 character vs. monster level 10 = 10-12 hits.
OMG.
but keeps the monsters challenging and fun to fight throughout the whole game
I don't think that this example is challenging or fun in any way. Actually, I think it sucks imho. I don't want to kill level 10 monsters in act 1 which - probably (otherwise i can't imagine character level 60 who is farming experience on level 10 mobs) give no experience, with 12 hits after i have gained 50 levels and got level 60 gear. So..
Monster lvl 10 vs. character lvl 10 + equipment level 10 = 25 hits.
Monster lvl 10 vs. character lvl 60 + equipment level 60 = 12 hits?
I do not like it at all.
You forgot a few things. In FF, there is no 100 billion of items and there is no system where 90% of a character power comes from items. Correct me if i'm wrong please, but FF is not primary based around collecting items and about seeing their effect all the time on your character/in combat every minute you find/upgrade something from milion of dropped items. You need to see difference in power every time you grab something decent.
25 vs. 12 hits difference between character level/gear 10 and character level/gear 60? No. At least not in Diablo.
Level 10 and level 60 is a HUGE GAP.
25 and 12(10) hits IS NOT.
Btw, conclusion based on your logic: If Diablo 3 won't have level scaling and will be successful, then i was right and level scaling doesn't work for Diablo.
Funny thing is that you haven't provided anything logical to support your claim that Scaling doesn't equal fun .. thus any statements based on that claim aren't valid .. including "that you aren't against fun by being against scaling" .. as scaling proved to be lots of fun in many very worldwide successful RPGs .. FF8 .. FF:tactics .. Golden Sun .. etc etc .. it freaking works and it adds lots of value if done right.So how I feel regarding monster scaling is invalid, simply because you disagree with how I feel.
Nice try, but no. I'm still against scaling, and still find it more fun without scaling.
My logic? Some synapses in my brain says so, and I must obey.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.