14 reasons why PK should stay in D3 [Archive]

etslayer

04-07-2008, 21:30

EDIT: it's actually 15 reasons.

Sorry for the ultra-long post... I hope at least somebody will read through the whole thing.

OK I have gotten into some pretty heated arguments with people on this forum regarding the PK removal issue. I'm going to try and be more civil in this thread.

If you disagree with me, please specifically point out which reason (listed below) you disagree with. And DO NOT take any of them out of context. If you have an issue with one of my reasons, quote the WHOLE reason. If you are just going to go on a rant about why PK should be eliminated, there are already threads for that. This thread is not for this purpose. All arguments should specifically relate to the points that I am laying down.

Blizzard has clearly stated that their reason for wanting to get rid of PKing is to encourage "cooperative gameplay". This is a flawed theory for many reasons. Frankley, I am surprised that a professional game designer would make such a shortsighted and (dare I say) ignorant comment.

I have made many of these arguments in other threads, but I wanted to put them all into one post.

1) PKers make up a very small minority of so-called "uncooperative players". I know that when I played D2, it was not PKers that ruined my fun, but the constant presence of racist bigots, stupid kids with nothing better to do than insult people, unwelcomed leechers, etc... Getting rid of PKing does not prevent anybody from being uncooperative. There are an infinite number of ways of ruining people's fun. Blizzard, if you want to make the game more cooperative you should do something about the most common forms of anti-social behavior rather than penalizing all the fans of the current D2 PvP system (no PK = entirely revamped PvP system).

2) It is not PKers in particular that ruin people's fun, but all anti-social behavior. There is no reason to single out PKing, because Blizzard provided many options for players to avoid playing with uncooperative players. There were level restrictions, private games, friends list to gather players that share your interests. The whole purpose of a gaming community is to party up with players that you get along with. Every single claim that a "high level PKer ruined your game" could have been easily avoided by utilizing the level restriction option. It is unfair to cater to those that fail to utilize the game's options (i will address low level "tweeked" Pkers as well)

3) In order to remove PK, the entire PvP system must be revamped. The way I see it, the most likely solution will be forcing both players to hit the hostile button before they can engage in combat. This opens up the door for a whole new breed of problem-player: those who run around dueling games pissing people off knowing that nobody can attack them. Actually, this is not a new breed... we see it now with level 1's running around dueling games and getting in the duelers way. So In order to solve these resultant problems, Blizzard will be forced to continue making more PvP restrictions to deal with these people. One restriction would lead to another etc... What we are left with is a watered down, overly-regulated PvP system that completely strays from other diablo games, and is very, very unnapealing in my mind.

4) Removing PK and revamping the PvP system is an artifical and shortsighted way of getting rid of uncooperative gameplay. It's like saying that you can get rid of racism by removing freedom of speech. It's completely obsurd. Getting rid of PK just means the assholes will find different ways of being assholes (a level 95 joins your game. He can't PK you but he CAN go and kill all the bosses before you can get to them. There you go, your fun is ruined and he didn't have to PK you) and those who enjoy the PvP as it is have to be penalized. Assholes are only avoidable if you go out of your way to avoid them. That's how it always has been and always will be. Getting rid of PK would dissapoint all the fans of the current PvP system while really not doing anything accomplishing to abolish anti-social behavior in any way whatsoever. Nothing is gained and many are left dissapointed. That is why it is an artificial solution. It sounds nice in theory, but doesn't accomplish anything.

5) Besides high level PKers, there is also the argument about low level tweeked characters that can slip through the level restrict filter and still PK you. This is not a valid reason to get rid of PK because a) there is a proportionally small number of low level tweeked chars, and if you happen to run into one, you can simply leave the game. Just like you can leave the game because of bigots and other fun-ruiners. Revamping the whole PvP system because of a small minority of **** disturbers would not make any sense. b) you can still avoid them by making private games.

6) PKing in softcore doesn't really mean anything because you just respawn anyway and don't lose anything. In fact, in all my years of SC play (and i played for a solid 7 years on sc), I hardley ever had to deal with PKers. People just don't PK in softcore very often. So why is it even an issue? Nevertheless, if PKing is removed, it means that all softcore players have to deal with an entirely new, frustratingly regulated PvP system even though SCPK has never even been much of an issue in the first place.

7) the real contraversy regarding PK has to do with HC. This is where the idea of getting rid of PK begins to take on some validity, because it can actually have devistating affects. However hardcore is called hardcore for a reason. What is the point of having a hardcore mode online if you are immune to all player attacks. That is the opposite of hardcore isn't it? If players only want to be vulnerable to monsters, they can either play in private games with friends (which I think is the perfect solution to this whole contraversy) or play single player. I have played HC and I remember losing my level 80 necro to a TPPKer. Yes I was pissed, but I also acknowledged that I should have been more careful. Carelessness and hardcore just don't mix. If you can't be careful, dont play hardcore.

8) As in SC, the removal of HC PK would mean a much more regulated PvP system. Once again. This is so not hardcore. Why should Blizzard change the HC PvP system just because some people don't have the guts to join a dueling game with the actual risk of getting killed without necessarely EXPECTING it? People in HC dueling games are cunning, and everybody is on the same page. Everybody knows that by stepping into blood moor, they risk losing their character. Take this suspense away from HC, and you take away the life-blood of multiplayer hardcore gameplay. As stated above, there are plenty of options for those who are only interested in PvM (see reason #2)

9) If you look at it another way, PK can actually encourage cooperative play. Say a tweeked level 30 comes into your game with the intention of PKing you. You can gather with your party and team up on him, just as if he were a monster.

10) Another way that PK encourages cooperative gameplay is in HC. HC is an environment much like in real life. You only have 1 shot, so don't screw it up. Knowing this, people are less likely to be assholes in general. In softcore everyone is free to say and do whatever they want because they know nobody can do anything to them. Even PKing doesn't do anything because they will still have their character and their big motuh. In HC it's much different. People are less likely to be uncooperative because they know that if they are anti-social, they face a greater risk of getting killed by another player. This is why HC games are generally so much more cooperative. Because of PK. Ironic eh?

11) TPPK hacks are not a valid argument for removing PK. Blizzard has to deal with these hacks, not remove a huge aspect of the game because of the possibility of hackers. That's not the correct approach to take in making a video game.

12) Legit TPPK (no hacks) can also be removed without affecting any other PvP aspects of the game. Blizzard can simply make it so that all spells cast before the hostile is made have no affect on other players. I am surprised Blizzard never implimented this simple solution to TPPK.

13) What ever happened to good ol' fashioned realism? The life-blood of the previous diablo games, the thing that made them so addictive. The game designers went out of their way to make the world as realistic as possible in terms of multiplayer interaction, and now they are going out of their way to get rid of it. Getting rid of PK, making more restrictions on PvP, making HC so much easier... this strays from the realism formula that made D2 one of the biggest and greatest games of all time.

14) You can also argue that TPPK should stay because of all the reasons listed in (12). I never cared for TPPK though.

15) Saying that "PKers ruined my fun" is not a valid argument. I could say that Duriel being so hard ruined my fun. So what? You have to give reasons why your fun was unfairly ruined. If you can come up with a way that PK illegitimately ruined your fun which I have not addressed in this post, please do so.

Crudesash68

04-07-2008, 22:53

The problem with many of your arguments is that they are subjective, and you assume that your opinion is a centered one that is logcally correct for everyone; that said, it is a well-written, passionate post.

Despite your demand, I will see your words in any context I choose. You are writing from a subjective viewpoint, and therefore cannot expect everyone else to see your words the way you do; you are not saying that water is wet, but that it tastes bad. Subjective.

If there is a majority of people who enjoy open, public games, without being PK'ed, and here I will make an uneducated assumption that this is true, many of your points simply lose their value.

Someone who PK's, in my opinion, is akin to the kid you knew who would destroy a project you and some other kids were working on, and laugh about it.

The argument about locking games is like saying it is OK to steal something if someone doesn't lock it up. I am not saying it is not stupid to take the risk, but it is still wrong to steal, whether or not the item is easily taken. A similar analogy is that a rape victim was "asking for it" by wearing sexy clothing.

Leaving a game when someone enters...OK, let's assume you are at a mall, and an annoucement comes over the loudspeaker "Murderer now in the building". Would you leave? Sure. Would you go back? No. If Blizzard does not make their realms enjoyable and fun for the people who play, they just won't, plain and simple. Going to another mall does not remove the problem.

Why do you assume that just because it is SC it is OK? It is still a pain in the you-know-what, still wastes time, and is still annoying! Not the same as HC, of course, but still annoying. Plus if you lose an Elite or Set item because of it, grr...(actually, I don't remember if you lose items in your inventory on death, so that may not be a consideration)

Here is a simple solution, and the game will be proof of it; make a section of the server open to PvP, and a section not open to PvP. Just like on WoW servers. Now, if there is a large group of people who enjoy HC games AND the added thrill of possibly getting killed by another player at almost max level before the final boss fight, why, the HC-PvP server will be bursting with people for you to fight. If they create this, and you are still upset about not being able to join games where people don't want you, you need to look in the mirror, because you are a miserable cretin.

I agree with some of what you said as well; PvP is not bad because of hacks, that makes everything bad, and if Blizz does not protect the servers the way they do with WoW, I will stick to SP like I did with D2.

Hopefully they work it out to make as many people happy as they can; I for one would like to try the B-Net side of things, but if the same system is in, I don't see how I would.

SirMoogie

04-07-2008, 22:57

EDIT: it's actually 15 reasons.
1) PKers make up a very small minority of so-called "uncooperative players". I know that when I played D2, it was not PKers that ruined my fun, but the constant presence of racist bigots, stupid kids with nothing better to do than insult people, unwelcomed leechers, etc... Getting rid of PKing does not prevent anybody from being uncooperative. There are an infinite number of ways of ruining people's fun. Blizzard, if you want to make the game more cooperative you should do something about the most common forms of anti-social behavior rather than penalizing all the fans of the current D2 PvP system (no PK = entirely revamped PvP system).

Invalid. Fallacy: Red herring and/or false dichotomy. I agree with your claim that racism, and other insults are detrimental to cooperation. However, the fact that these other types of activities are also disruptive is neither here nor there. PKing is still disruptive to cooperative play, and Blizzard can eliminate it AND these other problems that you mention. There is no reason to suspect that Blizzard is in a situation where they must choose between removing rampant insulting or removing PKing.

2) It is not PKers in particular that ruin people's fun, but all anti-social behavior. There is no reason to single out PKing, because Blizzard provided many options for players to avoid playing with uncooperative players. There were level restrictions, private games, friends list to gather players that share your interests. The whole purpose of a gaming community is to party up with players that you get along with. Every single claim that a "high level PKer ruined your game" could have been easily avoided by utilizing the level restriction option. It is unfair to cater to those that fail to utilize the game's options (i will address low level "tweeked" Pkers as well)

Unsound argument based on false premises. There is no evidence that PKing must accompany other antisocial behaviors in order to ruin cooperative play. Counter example: An individual that joins a game, even at the same level as the others playing, and waits for an opportune moment to 'defect', such as when the players are fighting a boss, can ruin the game play experience without incorporating other antisocial behaviors, such as racist language.

3) In order to remove PK, the entire PvP system must be revamped. The way I see it, the most likely solution will be forcing both players to hit the hostile button before they can engage in combat. This opens up the door for a whole new breed of problem-player: those who run around dueling games pissing people off knowing that nobody can attack them. Actually, this is not a new breed... we see it now with level 1's running around dueling games and getting in the duelers way. So In order to solve these resultant problems, Blizzard will be forced to continue making more PvP restrictions to deal with these people. One restriction would lead to another etc... What we are left with is a watered down, overly-regulated PvP system that completely strays from other diablo games, and is very, very unnapealing in my mind.

Invalid. Fallacy: Argument from ignorance,argument from dire consequences, red herring and potentially a false dichotomy. Just because you can't imagine a concise solution to dueling without incorporating PKing doesn't mean one doesn't exist, and that Blizzard hasn't thought of it already. In fact, they have. Look at WoW where there is dueling between members of the same faction, and yet, no PKing between them. Furthermore, just because something might be difficult to implement, doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented for the good of the game.

As for your second issue, it is another red herring. If level 1's get in the way, this is another type of anti-cooperative behavior that can be dealt with independently of the PK problem. There is no reason to think this is a dichotomy of choices.

4) Removing PK and revamping the PvP system is an artifical and shortsighted way of getting rid of uncooperative gameplay. It's like saying that you can get rid of racism by removing freedom of speech. It's completely obsurd. Getting rid of PK just means the assholes will find different ways of being assholes (a level 95 joins your game. He can't PK you but he CAN go and kill all the bosses before you can get to them. There you go, your fun is ruined and he didn't have to PK you) and those who enjoy the PvP as it is have to be penalized. Assholes are only avoidable if you go out of your way to avoid them. That's how it always has been and always will be. Getting rid of PK would dissapoint all the fans of the current PvP system while really not doing anything accomplishing to abolish anti-social behavior in any way whatsoever. Nothing is gained and many are left dissapointed. That is why it is an artificial solution. It sounds nice in theory, but doesn't accomplish anything.

Much of what was said in the rebuttal for the first point applies here. Blizzard can (attempt) to deal with all of these issues AND the PKing problem. There is a very effective way of dealing with the PK one, get rid of it. However, I couldn't resist adding another fallacy. Fallacy: Bad analogy. Removing the ability to speak, while an effective way of eliminating hate speech, it also removes a number of useful benefits for speech, such as cooperation. Removing PKing from Diablo only gets rid of the anti-cooperation aspects of PvP (and potentially some "fun" for the deviant), whilst sparing the cooperative game play.

5) Besides high level PKers, there is also the argument about low level tweeked characters that can slip through the level restrict filter and still PK you. This is not a valid reason to get rid of PK because a) there is a proportionally small number of low level tweeked chars, and if you happen to run into one, you can simply leave the game. Just like you can leave the game because of bigots and other fun-ruiners. Revamping the whole PvP system because of a small minority of **** disturbers would not make any sense. b) you can still avoid them by making private games.

Fallacy: Strawman. No one is arguing that PKing should be removed because the current system can't be utilized to filter out potential PKers well enough. Blizzard is arguing against all forms of PKing in Diablo III, a cooperative game, no matter how you choose to frame it.

Ok, that's enough for the time being. I'll get to the others some other time. Or maybe someone else can? =D

LucianDK

04-07-2008, 22:58

Involuntary PKing have no place in online games. Unless you willingly had entered a server with such rules, or enabled it in the game you made. Elsewhise it does not belong there under no circumstances. I do not want to have my time wasted by a snotty 12 year old.

etslayer

04-07-2008, 23:27

Nimbostratus

04-07-2008, 23:33

(note: adding titles to the points so it's easier to follow along without having to scroll back up)

1. Uncooperative players.
It's been a while since I played on Bnet, but I only encountered one or two major racists my whole time playing. Of the people I saw otherwise insulting each other, it was almost always confined to trading or dueling. Even if there are more insults being tossed around nowadays, I wouldn't say it ruins your fun. Just squelch them and move on. Leechers can be a little more annoying if your party is having trouble, but for the most part you can just reparty and leave them out of it. Jerks and leechers can be overcome in the same game. PKers force you to make a new game or start a "who can bring in the highest level" fight. While I agree that something should be done about racists, jerks, and leechers, PKing is the one that can most easily "ruin" a game.

2. Singling out PKing/level restrictions
Again, the non-PKing uncooperative players can be overcome with simple means. PKers require you to get something to fight back, or to start a new game and lose progress. As for level restrictions, they're usually left out in case somebody wants to bring in their higher level characters to help out. If they can get the focus away from "rush all the way to the endgame," then I could see people actually using this for once.

3. Unhostiled characters in dueling games
I don't have any experience in dueling, but I would judge this as more an annoyance than a major problem. If it is major, then they can just add in "PVP only" as a game choice and make everyone auto-hostile or something.

4. PKers -> quest ruiners
What proof do you have that former PKers will switch to just going around and killing bosses to ruin games? What proof do you have that any change to the current PVP system will make it frustratingly annoying?

5. same/lower level PKers
As I said earlier, you can squelch the people throwing insults, and you can re-party if a leecher is really getting to you. "Just leave the game" really isn't a good solution, as you have to re-make any progress you lost. And what's the point of Bnet if everyone is supposed to just play in private games with only people they know?

6. softcore PK/PVP
You still lose progress, exp, and gold. Not much compared to hardcore, but that doesn't mean it isn't frustrating to get killed by another player out of nowhere. And again, limits on PVP don't automatically make it frustrating.

7. What's the point of Hardcore without PK?
What's the point of making players go into private games with only people they know? And contrary to popular belief, there ARE some players who would enjoy Hardcore PVM without having to worry about any and every other player wanting to kill them.

8. Hardcore PVP
Limiting PKing doesn't automatically have to make regular PVP hard to do.

9. PKing encouraging cooperative play
The problem is that people don't usually wanna risk it. If things were more balanced so that a PKer of roughly the same level couldn't kill you in under 5 hits, then I'd be all for this. I'd love to see some sort of "rescue" system where you get some sort of bonus (even if it's just a "bragging rights only" stat) for defeating a PKer.

10. PKing making people more cooperative in HC
For the people that don't PK, yes, it makes them more cooperative. But think of how rampant PKing is in HC mode. That's not exactly cooperation there. Besides, at least part of the extra cooperation in normal players comes from not wanting to get killed by curse/extra strong/extra fast frenzytaurs and the like. Other players aren't the only threat, ya know. Heck, they could make monsters more dangerous than usual in HC if necessary.

11. -

12. -

13. Realism in PKing
I doubt that the ability to be killed by other players while doing PVM was such a major selling point. Besides, killing somebody just for the sake of killing them isn't really "realistic."

14. -

15. Ruined fun not being a valid argument
In the example you gave, the player knows they're going to face an act boss, and thus it doesn't come as a complete surprise if he gets his *** handed to him. In all games after that, he knows what he's up against and can plan accordingly. You can plan for nearly anything in PVM. Not the case with PKers.

SirMoogie

04-07-2008, 23:54

What I am trying to say is that all of the frustration that derives from negative, uncooperative players is all being displaced onto PKers simply because it is much simpler for the devs to get rid of PK than other types of uncooperative play.
In other words, PKers are being used as scapegoats to blame for all of D2's cooperation problems, thereby artifically bloating the actual affect that they have on gameplay, which is relatively insignificant. I know that this alone is not an argument to keep PK, but I am establishing that PKers' affect on the game is greatly exadurated.

You don't have any evidence for this, and there has been counter evidence provided that Blizzard has focused on countering the other anti-cooperative behaviors, such as racism through squelching and reporting. You're now beating a dead horse.

I am not saying that change is bad. What I am saying is that many of these changes will have to be made not because there is anything wrong with the current dueling system (referring specifically to PvP, not PK), but because a change in PK will impose itself onto dueling. There is no way around it. Blizzard will have to change the PvP to accomodate the change in PK, regardless of whether the PvP actually needs a change in the first place. Whether it does or not is a completely different discussion.

Stick to the issues. PKing. Dueling is not on the table, and Blizzard has said nothing about removing consensual dueling. This nonsense about this actually being a burden to implement has also been refuted. Blizzard has made successful PvP games that don't allow PKing (See WoW and inter-faction cooperation w/o PKing).

The level 1 example was just an example of why changing PK would cause a whole chain of changes, and that it couldn't just stop at changing PK alone. It is just an example as to why the anti-PK camp is asking for more changes than they necessarely realise they are.

You have no evidence to support this claim. A system without PKing is just that, a system without PKing. Getting rid of it in its entirety removes even a "twinked" level 1 character from ruining the cooperative gameplay. There is no chain of changes required. PKing is gone. Good riddance, I say. =D

And you are assuming that PK is a problem. I am trying to argue that it is NOT a problem. Therefore your rebuttal in this case is invalid.

You haven't argued that it isn't a problem, though. The argument goes that PKing is antithetical to cooperative gameplay, Diablo III is aiming to be a cooperative gameplay, therefore PKing should be removed. This is a valid argument, though it might not be sound. However, the only premise that could possibly be questioned is*: "PKing is antithetical to cooperative gameplay". This seems self-evident, can you explain how PKing makes for cooperative gameplay? I thought the whole idea was to interfere with one or more other player's progress in a game?

* - Unless you believe Blizzard is lying about their goals with Diablo III.

My entire point is that eliminating PK does not make the game cooperative. That was literally the entire point of my rant in the first place. If Blizzard wants to make the game cooperative, eliminating PK will not even slightly do anything at all to help.

This is agree with, only because if the only action by Blizzard was to remove PKing, this wouldn't ensure the game is cooperative. However, Blizzard has said they are working on making the gameplay encourage cooperation. If they succeed, then PKing acts as an antithesis to those goals and should be removed.

etslayer

05-07-2008, 01:20

You have no evidence to support this claim. A system without PKing is just that, a system without PKing. Getting rid of it in its entirety removes even a "twinked" level 1 character from ruining the cooperative gameplay. There is no chain of changes required. PKing is gone. Good riddance, I say. =D

In the context of Diablo, there is absolutely no way to get rid of PK without affecting general PvP. They would have to make it so that both characters agree to duel, and that is a huge change from what it is right now. And are you saying you want a WoW style pvp? That is completely different from what we have now, so obviously tons of changes would have to be made to PvP if PK is removed.

And the only way PKing could be a legitimate flaw in the game is if there were no way to avoid it. But there is. I have repeated this over and over. Blizzard specifically implemented features which allow the players to have the sort of game they want. People who want PK in their games get to have it if they don't use these options. Simple.

And do you really want Blizzard to try and remove every single annoying thing that people can do? You have to have the freedom to be annoying, or the game would have no freedoms at all. Have fun playing that kiddy load of ****.

SirMoogie

05-07-2008, 01:28

If your arguments have devolved into catch phrases like, "Have fun playing that kiddy load of ****", I think we're done here. The quest for a sound argument for including PK in Diablo III, a game with the stated goal of encouraging cooperation, continues.

etslayer

05-07-2008, 01:41

1. Uncooperative players.
It's been a while since I played on Bnet, but I only encountered one or two major racists my whole time playing. Of the people I saw otherwise insulting each other, it was almost always confined to trading or dueling. Even if there are more insults being tossed around nowadays, I wouldn't say it ruins your fun. Just squelch them and move on. Leechers can be a little more annoying if your party is having trouble, but for the most part you can just reparty and leave them out of it. Jerks and leechers can be overcome in the same game. PKers force you to make a new game or start a "who can bring in the highest level" fight. While I agree that something should be done about racists, jerks, and leechers, PKing is the one that can most easily "ruin" a game.

you are ignoring my whole point about making private games and using level restrictions. Just like there is squelch to deal with spammers, there are options to deal with PKers. It is much easier to avoid PKers than other types of abusive players. The way I see it, if you make a public game, you are welcoming all sorts of playing styles. That's why Blizzard implemented filtering options to get the sort of gameplay you desire for your game.

2. Singling out PKing/level restrictions
Again, the non-PKing uncooperative players can be overcome with simple means. PKers require you to get something to fight back, or to start a new game and lose progress. As for level restrictions, they're usually left out in case somebody wants to bring in their higher level characters to help out. If they can get the focus away from "rush all the way to the endgame," then I could see people actually using this for once.

That's not the reason that most people don't use level restrictions. a) It's usually because they are too lazy to move there hand a couple millimeters and actually select. b) level restrict has not proven itself to even be a necessesity for most people because PK really isnt as commong as people like to claim. That is why people don't utilize it. If you really cared about your game being ruined by PKers, you would use level restrict.

3. Unhostiled characters in dueling games
I don't have any experience in dueling, but I would judge this as more an annoyance than a major problem. If it is major, then they can just add in "PVP only" as a game choice and make everyone auto-hostile or something.

Well in this PvP only game you speak of, PK would be allowed right? So what's all the gripe about PK then? They should just have separate games for PvP/PK then rather than eliminating PK entirely... is that your suggestion?

4. PKers -> quest ruiners
What proof do you have that former PKers will switch to just going around and killing bosses to ruin games? What proof do you have that any change to the current PVP system will make it frustratingly annoying?

What I am doing is categorizing PKing with all other forms of annoyance. I don't see any difference between PKing a game and ruining the quests for the players in another fashion. They are both forms of annoyance. If Blizzard's goal is to achieve cooperative gameplay, they should provide more incentive for team play rather than removing an element that is only there as a result of realism.

5. same/lower level PKers
As I said earlier, you can squelch the people throwing insults, and you can re-party if a leecher is really getting to you. "Just leave the game" really isn't a good solution, as you have to re-make any progress you lost. And what's the point of Bnet if everyone is supposed to just play in private games with only people they know?

OK you are missing my point here. First of all, if you are going to attack PKing, you should at least admit that it should only be removed if it is so rampant that it consistantly disrupts your gameplay. When I say that you can leave the game, I am specifically talking about games disrupted low level tweeked characters, which are actually incredibly rare. FAR more rare than other types of abusive play in which you would have no choice but to leave. So why can't you leave in this case? There comes a point where you have to realize that there will always be annoying people, and there shouldn't be restrictions on every little type of annoyance. Tweeked low level PKers fall into this category of things that simply aren't worth paying attention to. In fact in Softcore play I don't think my gameplay was ever distracted by these sorts of characters. Not even once to my memory.

6. softcore PK/PVP
You still lose progress, exp, and gold. Not much compared to hardcore, but that doesn't mean it isn't frustrating to get killed by another player out of nowhere. And again, limits on PVP don't automatically make it frustrating.

True, it is frustrating to get killed by PKers when you are trying to quest. But think about it... is this risk of losing some progress and gold (not exp, you don't lose exp from getting PK'd) in a pulic game worth revamping the entire PvP system for?

7. What's the point of Hardcore without PK?
What's the point of making players go into private games with only people they know? And contrary to popular belief, there ARE some players who would enjoy Hardcore PVM without having to worry about any and every other player wanting to kill them.

Players don't have to go into private games if they don't want. But hardcore implies that there are many more threats than in softcore. And sure, I agree with you that there are hc players who don't like worrying about other people killing them. To them I say: too bad, just because you don't like it is not a reason to remove it. Come up with some logical reasons as to why it should be removed. Hardcore is simply not hardcore if people are invulnerable to unexpected attacks.

8. Hardcore PVP
Limiting PKing doesn't automatically have to make regular PVP hard to do.

Yes it does. PvP would take on a completely different feel if there is no unconsentual hostility. And the element of suspense would also be lost, something that is vital to HC gameplay.

9. PKing encouraging cooperative play
The problem is that people don't usually wanna risk it. If things were more balanced so that a PKer of roughly the same level couldn't kill you in under 5 hits, then I'd be all for this. I'd love to see some sort of "rescue" system where you get some sort of bonus (even if it's just a "bragging rights only" stat) for defeating a PKer.

There are many problems with what you are saying here...
a) using level restrict can help you avoid unwanted confrontations with higher level chars
b) Why should there be such a strange balance that doesn't let people have lot's of damage? What kind of game would D2 have been if nobody could kill anybody in under 5 hits? Hell I would rather have the no-PK rule than have to play with such a weird game where nobody can kill anyone in 1 hit.
c) I like your idea of having PKK bonuses. However for that to work there would have to be a clear distinction between PK and regular dueling which the game can recognize, It would be quite hard to implement.

10. PKing making people more cooperative in HC
For the people that don't PK, yes, it makes them more cooperative. But think of how rampant PKing is in HC mode. That's not exactly cooperation there. Besides, at least part of the extra cooperation in normal players comes from not wanting to get killed by curse/extra strong/extra fast frenzytaurs and the like. Other players aren't the only threat, ya know. Heck, they could make monsters more dangerous than usual in HC if necessary.

I see no problem with PKing being rampant in HC. As I said, I don't think HC would be fun without the possibility of getting PK'd. As far as cooperation goes, how can you deny that people are less likely to be dickweeds if they face the risk of getting killed by the party.

13. Realism in PKing
I doubt that the ability to be killed by other players while doing PVM was such a major selling point. Besides, killing somebody just for the sake of killing them isn't really "realistic."

It's not about the player's reasons for killing someone. What makes the game realistic is the fact that anything can happen. it's called suspense. Why pussify hardcore mode? HC is the last resort for people who want the maximum challenge that this realistic game has to offer. Taking away PK makes the game less realistic and, thus, less challenging.

15. Ruined fun not being a valid argument
In the example you gave, the player knows they're going to face an act boss, and thus it doesn't come as a complete surprise if he gets his *** handed to him. In all games after that, he knows what he's up against and can plan accordingly. You can plan for nearly anything in PVM. Not the case with PKers.

Actually, there are many ways that monsters can spring on you without you expecting it. The game does this intentionally. This can easily ruin a player's fun. Too bad. That's why games have obstacles.

coldsong

05-07-2008, 02:56

OP i support your cause but you are only asking for the CBs to crawl out

Mythor

05-07-2008, 03:46

1) PKers make up a very small minority of so-called "uncooperative players".This is a good reason to keep PK'ing out of the game - by your own admission they are antithetical to the design of the game.

2) It is not PKers in particular that ruin people's fun, but all anti-social behavior.Fine. Then racists should be allowed in the game as well, after all people can just password games and then the racists can't get in! Problem solved, right?
And, again, by your own admission, PKers are antisocial beings. They have no place in a social setting.

3) In order to remove PK, the entire PvP system must be revamped. The way I see it, the most likely solution will be forcing both players to hit the hostile button before they can engage in combat. This opens up the door for a whole new breed of problem-player: those who run around dueling games pissing people off knowing that nobody can attack them. Actually, this is not a new breed... we see it now with level 1's running around dueling games and getting in the duelers way. So In order to solve these resultant problems, Blizzard will be forced to continue making more PvP restrictions to deal with these people. One restriction would lead to another etc... What we are left with is a watered down, overly-regulated PvP system that completely strays from other diablo games, and is very, very unnapealing in my mind.Well, gee, maybe the PvP/duellers could set up level restricted games? Or passworded games? Or games amongst the friends they don't have! (Joking on that last one...)
You see, the problem with that suggestion is that you are creating a minor inconvenience to a minority of players - most people don't want to PvP almost exclusively - in order to completely negate the major inconvenience to large swathes of the population, as caused by "antisocial, uncooperative PKers".
Yes, you will get a few jerks who look to disrupt the games of PvP fans, but people who just want to play the main part of the game will no longer be harassed out of it.

4) Removing PK and revamping the PvP system is an artifical and shortsighted way of getting rid of uncooperative gameplay.As opposed to the non-artificial way, which would be... what?
It's not an artificial way and it isn't shortsighted. Getting rid of PK'ing is a long term solution since it ensures players who would otherwise quit in disgust after being PK'd will instead stick around and keep the community vibrant and strong.
It can't be an "artificial" means of getting rid of it. You can't get rid of PK'ing without getting rid of PK'ing. It is a logical impossibility.

5) Besides high level PKers, there is also the argument about low level tweeked characters that can slip through the level restrict filter and still PK you. This is not a valid reason to get rid of PK because a) there is a proportionally small number of low level tweeked chars, and if you happen to run into one, you can simply leave the game. It is a valid reason because it is still disrupting people's enjoyment of the game, is still antisocial, still "uncooperative"...

6) PKing in softcore doesn't really mean anything because you just respawn anyway and don't lose anything.Except the time it took you to get to wherever you were in the game, potentially some of your gold (or whatever else is part of the death penalty in this NEW DIABLO GAME THAT ISN'T DIABLO 2) the time it will take you to get back to where you were either in the same game if the PKer left or in a new game if they're being "antisocial" and "uncooperative" and corpse camping... which you know they will be because that's precisely what griefers do and PKers are griefers...

7) the real contraversy regarding PK has to do with HC. This is where the idea of getting rid of PK begins to take on some validity, because it can actually have devistating affects. However hardcore is called hardcore for a reason. What is the point of having a hardcore mode online if you are immune to all player attacks. That is the opposite of hardcore isn't it?The point of hardcore is that you have one life which you are challenging the monsters to take away from you, not some dirtbag griefer you never stood a chance at defending yourself against.
Whilst I will agree that some Hardcore players welcome the added challenge of being hunted by players, there's no question that the majority find it very unwelcome and will be happy to know it's now gone and they can focus on the real challenges of Hardcore, not the artificial ones being imposed by griefing PKers.

8) As in SC, the removal of HC PK would mean a much more regulated PvP system. Once again. This is so not hardcore. Why should Blizzard change the HC PvP system just because some people don't have the guts to join a dueling game with the actual risk of getting killed without necessarely EXPECTING it? People in HC dueling games are cunning, and everybody is on the same page.And they can continue to play HC duels since there won't be anything stopping them from doing so.
Hardcore isn't about being able to be killed by players. If that were the case it wouldn't be in singleplayer. It's about the player versus the environment and Diablo 3 is finally going to acknowledge that.
Point 8 is not a reason why PK should stay, but I will grant that Point 8 is a reason why characters should be able to permanently flag themselves for PvP - which would allow PK'ing of those characters, for the Hardcore who think they're being hardcore by allowing it...

9) If you look at it another way, PK can actually encourage cooperative play. Say a tweeked level 30 comes into your game with the intention of PKing you. You can gather with your party and team up on him, just as if he were a monster.Or you could continue with the party you formed with the intention of tackling the actual game instead of being forced to defend yourselves from another player.
That is "cooperative", and yet still not a good reason to reinstate PK'ing since it is still disruptive and antisocial behaviour and, ultimately, not entirely cooperative, since true cooperative play would be for the PKer to see that there's a party in progress and join them, not be uncooperative and try to destroy them.

10) Another way that PK encourages cooperative gameplay is in HC. HC is an environment much like in real life. You only have 1 shot, so don't screw it up. Knowing this, people are less likely to be assholes in general. In softcore everyone is free to say and do whatever they want because they know nobody can do anything to them. Even PKing doesn't do anything because they will still have their character and their big motuh. In HC it's much different. People are less likely to be uncooperative because they know that if they are anti-social, they face a greater risk of getting killed by another player. This is why HC games are generally so much more cooperative. Because of PK. Ironic eh?Ironic and completely false, but nice try!
Jerks are jerks are jerks. Unless you're wanting to make towns no longer be safe zones, they can still run their mouths from there.
HC games are more cooperative due to the nature of the game - people only have one life to lose and so they're much more likely to help each other out, because they're all in the same boat. It has nothing at all to do with PK'ing and it is disingenuous to suggest it does.

11) TPPK hacks are not a valid argument for removing PK. Blizzard has to deal with these hacks, not remove a huge aspect of the game because of the possibility of hackers. That's not the correct approach to take in making a video game.Agreed.
Not allowing those hacks to proliferate is not a reason to allow PK'ing in the game though.
By disabling PK'ing altogether you completely negate the need to deal with this issue and in return you annoy a very small segment of the potential audience (who are antisocial and disruptive by nature) and make a much larger segment (who are not antisocial dirtbags) very happy.
Additionally, PK'ing is not a "huge aspect of the game", it is a minor aspect that is used to grief other players and must therefore be left out.

12) Legit TPPK (no hacks) can also be removed without affecting any other PvP aspects of the game. Blizzard can simply make it so that all spells cast before the hostile is made have no affect on other players. I am surprised Blizzard never implimented this simple solution to TPPK.It sounds simple, but in reality it likely isn't simple, since any "lasting effect" spells or "delayed effect" spells would have to keep checking that their targets hadn't been invalidated, etc.
And, again, solving a problem that is much more easily solved by removing the ability to PK, as Blizzard have done.
Not a reason why PK should stay in the game.

13) What ever happened to good ol' fashioned realism? The life-blood of the previous diablo games, the thing that made them so addictive. The game designers went out of their way to make the world as realistic as possible in terms of multiplayer interaction, and now they are going out of their way to get rid of it. Getting rid of PK, making more restrictions on PvP, making HC so much easier... this strays from the realism formula that made D2 one of the biggest and greatest games of all time.Realism? Seriously, you're going to go to that well?
Definitely not a reason to keep PK'ing in the game. Realism? In a fantasy game?!
Wow.

14) You can also argue that TPPK should stay because of all the reasons listed in (12). I never cared for TPPK though.So point 14 is... point 12. Err, okay. See reason for point 12...

15) Saying that "PKers ruined my fun" is not a valid argument. I could say that Duriel being so hard ruined my fun. So what?Explain why it isn't a valid argument.
I contend that it is a valid argument. The game is meant to be fun and antisocial dirtbag griefers coming in to disrupt my time in the game does, in fact, ruin my fun. Which, in turn, ruins the game. There is no disputing that very basic fact.
Duriel - and indeed any other PvE monster - is an integral part of the game and is expected to be balanced versus the level of the player. It is expected that Act Bosses will be significant challenges. Overcoming such challenges is part of the fun of the game. If you can't get past Duriel then you know you can go back and level or gear up some more before attempting him again. That is part of the process.

PK'ing is not part of the process. It is an abuse of a game mechanic by a select few to ruin the enjoyment of the game for an indiscriminate many.
Trying to equate it to other difficult things in the game is very obviously a flimsy argument and is just as obviously not a reason why PK should be added to D3.

In reality, what you've truly listed is 15 reasons why not adding PK'ing to Diablo 3 was one of the best decisions made during the design phase of the game. PK'ing is antisocial, disruptive, against the cooperative theme of the game, unwelcome to a majority of players of the game and generally not something the majority will even miss. It's "absence" will ensure a much more friendly environment for people who want to actually play the game, not be griefing dirtbags.
Frankly this is the just desserts PKers have deserved for so, so long.

smartdot

05-07-2008, 04:31

2) It is not PKers in particular that ruin people's fun, but all anti-social behavior. There is no reason to single out PKing, because Blizzard provided many options for players to avoid playing with uncooperative players. There were level restrictions, private games, friends list to gather players that share your interests. The whole purpose of a gaming community is to party up with players that you get along with. Every single claim that a "high level PKer ruined your game" could have been easily avoided by utilizing the level restriction option. It is unfair to cater to those that fail to utilize the game's options (i will address low level "tweeked" Pkers as well)

3) In order to remove PK, the entire PvP system must be revamped. The way I see it, the most likely solution will be forcing both players to hit the hostile button before they can engage in combat. This opens up the door for a whole new breed of problem-player: those who run around dueling games pissing people off knowing that nobody can attack them. Actually, this is not a new breed... we see it now with level 1's running around dueling games and getting in the duelers way. So In order to solve these resultant problems, Blizzard will be forced to continue making more PvP restrictions to deal with these people. One restriction would lead to another etc... What we are left with is a watered down, overly-regulated PvP system that completely strays from other diablo games, and is very, very unnapealing in my mind.

these two points contradict. First you say there are many effective ways of stopping players you dont want to enter a game, then say that bad people will enter your game and screw it up since there isnt any consequences. Tired of level 1's in your dueling games? -level restriction. dont want biggoted players? -password.

also why not just put a check button when creating the game that determines if there is pvp or not?

EDIT REASON: punctuation.

etslayer

05-07-2008, 06:08

these two points contradict. First you say there are many effective ways of stopping players you dont want to enter a game, then say that bad people will enter your game and screw it up since there isnt any consequences. Tired of level 1's in your dueling games? -level restriction. dont want biggoted players? -password.

also why not just put a check button when creating the game that determines if there is pvp or not?

EDIT REASON: punctuation.

But I'm not talking about the annoying level ones. What I am saying is that with consentual-only dueling, it wouldn't be only level ones doing this but everybody could do it. I just hate the idea of someone running around a dueling game knowing they can be as annoying as they want without the risk of getting killed by the other players.

Verashiden

05-07-2008, 11:52

I'm a Hunter Killer and I enjoy it :D.

Hunter Killing in a sense actually promotes cooperation. When a party is hostiled (assuming legitimately. Those who TPPK are scum who give the rest of us a bad name) the party has the choice of either trying to finish the run before I reach them, Go to town and wait me out, or band together and try to deal with me. Hell, even before I started Hunter Killing I loved it since it added some spice to the mundane runs that went on. Seven people can take out one person if they all work together.

I will say this though, I don't like those who are 80+ crashing 20+ games. That's a coward, not a Hunter Killer. I'm talking about a player who hunts those in his level range or higher.

Swiffer

05-07-2008, 12:48

I was going to counter argue point by point, but by the time i got to point 7 i realised that the entirety of your argument boils down to (essentially): Play in private games if you dont want to deal with PKing.

I am sorry, but i completely disagree. The assholes and douchbags that go around PKing people, disrupting their enjoyment of the game, should be the ones that have to get over roadblocks. We should not have to wall ourselves in a protected world while the idiots roam free.

OverUsedChewToy

05-07-2008, 14:20

To the OP:

Argument 1- Perfectionist Fallacy http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Perfectionist

Argument 2-
* Level restriction didn't stop PKers, especially at the higher levels.
* Passworded games can't be public. Unless you suggest all non-pk games should be private?
* /F list implies private games too (public games with /F's can still be PK'ed).
* Some people and game types welcomed a diversity of character levels (there are many character levels spanning a single act and often they can compatibly work together in a team).
* Some people like making public games to help others out with their higher level characters.
*Also, the first point in that was another perfectionist fallacy.

Argument 3-
*Slippery slope argument http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Slippery%20Slope
*There would be more pragmatic ways to settle PvP, depending on how the game is made, than to have these "ridiculous restrictions" you speak of.

Argument 4-
* Perfectionist fallacy once again
* Unjustified presumption PvP will work the same as it did in d2.
*PvP isn't necessarily attached to PKing, although it was contingently so in d2.

Argument 5-
* If you leave the game due to a PK you lose some progress and have to remake, endangering your chance of finding the same gaming crowd.
*Hardcore is usually the worst place for PKers in public games and there ARE a LOT of tweaked low levels just begging for your ear.
*You can ignore people who are "bigots and other fun-ruiners".
*Other measures can be taken to stop people being assholes in other ways.
*The game disturbers may be a minority, but in public games, especially hardcore ones, where characters not dying is of utmost importance, this minority can effectively make an entire game of up to 7 (perhaps more in d3 given the same game mechanics etc.) players one of ruined fun.
*PKs in hardcore have effectively killed non-newbie public games beyond around level 15
*Why should people be forced into private games for the sake of PKers?
*Public games are where you meet many of your /F list.

Argument 6-
*You presume any new PvP system will be frustratingly regulated.
*It may not happen in softcore much, but griefing is a *****, especially for untwinked characters.
*You lose out on playing time and enjoyment, money and exp if your corpse is missing in hell or nightmare (maybe not in d3 but we're presuming d2 game mechanics, which all of your arguments are founded on).

Argument 7-
*Hardcore has monsters in it, they're challenging enough without some idiot running in and "pwnz0ring" everyone.
*Many would probably like to co-op in public games in hardcore without having to worry about every game having someone come after my ear, especially when one is focusing on monsters. I don't see why players should be forced into private because someone will ruin their entire character if they enter a public game.

Argument 8-
*Presuming a necessary tie between PvP and PKing.
*Presuming that inconvenient/stupid restrictions will be put in for any differing PvP system.

Argument 9-
*You know very well that never happens, since they're usually tweaked to hell and back and/or your teammates do the wise thing and flee.

Argument 10-
*You haven't substantiated this with any evidence at all. I personally notice barely any difference in loud-mouthiness and cooperation between SC and HC. Both of these are personal experiences and as such are invalid for such a generalised argument.

Argument 11-
*It's griefing and PKing in general more than just TPPK that's the problem.
*Blizzard can deal with both.

Argument 12-
*All PK can be removed without a significant effect on PvP

Argument 13-
*Wrong, they're in it for the game-play (and the money :P)
*They're also unsubstantiated claims, presuming the truth of your other arguments.

Argument 14-
*Pointless Argument

Argument 15-
* You enter a game knowing you will fight monsters. PK's arrive uninvited. It is a force of unpermitted coercion, whereas a monster slaughtering you is something you consent to when you enter the game.
*It's the difference between being beaten in a boxing match by your opponent and having someone jump into the ring with a chair/gun/attack weapon of your choice and attacking you with it.

coldsong

05-07-2008, 16:14

god forbid something unexpected happens!!!!

if you want a predictable game, play tetris. but then even there the falling pieces' shape are random... ehh... nvm

smartdot

05-07-2008, 16:18

And the only way PKing could be a legitimate flaw in the game is if there were no way to avoid it. But there is. I have repeated this over and over. Blizzard specifically implemented features which allow the players to have the sort of game they want. People who want PK in their games get to have it if they don't use these options. Simple.

And do you really want Blizzard to try and remove every single annoying thing that people can do? You have to have the freedom to be annoying, or the game would have no freedoms at all. Have fun playing that kiddy load of ****.

Just a question. Why should the majority of players (you cant argue with the fact the majority of players dont like pking or being pked) have to limit their experience with the game, so a small percentage of players can have their fun. Its like saying since vegetarians dont eat meat, people arnt allowed to buy meat unless they have a licence or raise the livestock themselves. Why wouldnt there just be the option to eat meat or not eat meat (a pvp button on game creation)

etslayer

05-07-2008, 16:59

god forbid something unexpected happens!!!!

if you want a predictable game, play tetris. but then even there the falling pieces' shape are random... ehh... nvm

yes, and while we're at it let's implement giant flaming boulders randomly falling down from the sky to add keep the spirit of unexpected randomness alive. nothing quite spells diablo like being on the verge of killing a boss after an hour of tiresome battle only to be obliterated by an element totally out of your control.

In HC I really don't see why you can't just leave a game if you don't want to get PK'd. I know that the endgame in HC would be rather dry if all duels are mutually agreed upon. In hardcore D2 if you are standing in blood moor in a dueling game, you are pretty much egging people on to attack you. It doesn't matter if you mutually hostile people. Anybody who has palyed a lot of HC knows what I mean. Its arbitrary to require mutual hostilies. Ruins HC completely for PvP.

Realism? Seriously, you're going to go to that well?
Definitely not a reason to keep PK'ing in the game. Realism? In a fantasy game?!
Wow.

I clearly said realism in terms of player interactions, not the world itself.

Explain why it isn't a valid argument.
I contend that it is a valid argument. The game is meant to be fun and antisocial dirtbag griefers coming in to disrupt my time in the game does, in fact, ruin my fun. Which, in turn, ruins the game. There is no disputing that very basic fact.
Duriel - and indeed any other PvE monster - is an integral part of the game and is expected to be balanced versus the level of the player. It is expected that Act Bosses will be significant challenges. Overcoming such challenges is part of the fun of the game. If you can't get past Duriel then you know you can go back and level or gear up some more before attempting him again. That is part of the process.

OK you are assuming that PKing is automatically a negative aspect of the game, and you are also claiming that I said this. I never implied that PK is antethetical to the game (btw, how can it be "antethetical" if it was deliberatley put in the game by the developers?), I am saying that even IF it contrasts the nature of the game, the removal of it would mean a big change in other aspects of PvP.

Anyway, saying that you want an aspect of the game removed because it ruins YOUR fun is not a valid argument. In fact it's incredibly selfish. Removing PK would ruin MY fun, even though I NEVER went out PKing people trying to complete a quest. Who is right? It's not a matter of whose fun is ruined, but the legitimacy of the act of PK. I simply adore the fact that HC is the hardest possible level, and taking out PK makes it much easier because I WANT it to be a true hardcore experience. That is why I support PK (btw I'm only arguing for HC at this point, because I don't really care about SC to tell you the truth)

So about the legitimacy of PK... technically PK does not necessarely mean hostiling people while they are doing a quest then hunting them down. In D2, technically, every single time a person hostiles another player its a potential PK because it automatically makes them vulnerable to your attack (even if there is verbal agreement, there is no actual in-game mechanism that allows consent). The game itself does not recognize the circumstances under which a player fights another player. Therefore hostiling a person in a dueling game can be PK also. You are choosing one aspect of PK and applying it to all. I don't think that players who join a dueling game in HC should be forced to mutually agree on dueling. I can see how this might be good for SC because it takes out a lot of the nonsense of your typical dueling game. But if this is incoorporated into HC, it will take a lot of fun away from dueling games.
In HC, people who are only interested in PvM don't go to dueling games. However their distaste for PK will force dueling games to change. In the current HC mode on D2, as a PvP oriented player I have a lot of insentive to go out and get the absolute best gear and make the best character. Why? Because I want to be able to withstand any sort of PvP interaction. I don't WANT to be put in a situation where i can pick and choose who can and can't attack me. It takes away a lot of the insentive to get the best gear and be fully prepared before going into dueling games. It also removes a lot of the suspense in HC. The way I see it, if I join a dueling game in HC, that is automatic consent to duel. There shouldn't be a secondary in-game mechanism to further filter out who can and can't attack me. For the anti-PK camp, this is not even considered. All you guys care about is how PK affects your game, but you don't realize how it's presence enhances the game for so many others.

The truth is, many of the people that truley hate PK are casual players. But hardcore is the opposite of casual. If you are just a casual player who wants to fight monsters, then hardcore is not the game for you. If you can't stand the idea of getting killed by another player, then don't play hc or at least make passworded games or play with people that you know. It's unfair to remove an aspect of the game just because you choose not to do this.

Also, I welcome PKers because it's fun to kill them. I personally want to have the option of sticking around and defending myself, or leaving the game. That is a choice I do not mind making at all. In my opinion, having to leave a game if I don't want to get PK'd is a fair exchange for the possibility of fighting the PKer if I decide I want to. This is another area where the anti-PK camp only cares about their own fun. You guys just assume that people don't want to be challenged by PKers.

Arkansaw

06-07-2008, 05:33

I don't like the PK element of the game, but certainly some saddists like it and probably they will keep it. As long as the game maker can disallow PK on game creation (hopefully a default setting), you can list 1001 reasons for PK or whatever. Basically, don't count on getting your enjoyment to the detriment of other players.

Arkansaw

06-07-2008, 05:34

The truth is, many of the people that truley hate PK are casual players. But hardcore is the opposite of casual. If you are just a casual player who wants to fight monsters, then hardcore is not the game for you. If you can't stand the idea of getting killed by another player, then don't play hc or at least make passworded games or play with people that you know. It's unfair to remove an aspect of the game just because you choose not to do this.

That is what I call 'hardcore snobbery', if that's even worthy of a term. Who gave you the right to enshrine PK as a lauded aspect of hardcore play?

maxusmag

06-07-2008, 06:00

Involentary pvp in a game is annoying. If i want to pvp then it should be on my terms not someone elses.

i can't tell you the number of times people would log into a public game and kill the mid-range party with their lvl 90 barb. it got very annoying very fast and there was nothing you could do except leave.

there should not be pk or involentary pvp. if they want then they need to make a different ffa pvp server. you can go play on that. then we can hear you whine when someone in your group goes hostile and kills you.

when that happens i lose time and money and experience.

your reasons fail to pure logic. i want to play and enjoy the game not worry that some moron is going to hostile me and my group and then kill me with his uber character. sorry that is just not fun and there are plenty of people that agree with me.

the only time you should be able to do that is if both people have a hostile tag switch on. then you can do what you want. however you can't attack someone unless they have theirs turned on as well.

5zigen

06-07-2008, 06:20

Funkopotamus

06-07-2008, 07:23

I want to be able to gank someone while they're fighting a boss, then unparty and kill the boss. C'mon Blizzard, be a pal.

OverUsedChewToy

06-07-2008, 09:14

Are you guys law students or something?

Philosophy :thumbup:

5zigen

06-07-2008, 09:55

I want to be able to gank someone while they're fighting a boss, then unparty and kill the boss. C'mon Blizzard, be a pal.

you forgot "and loot the ganked's corpse too"

stephan

06-07-2008, 10:13

I'm not necessarily for or against pking, but for PKing to be acceptable it must conform with two conditions (IMO):

1. PKing must have a function in the game. The only thing you achieve with PK in SC is disrupting someone else's game play. However, in a HC ladder environment, where you are not just competing with the monsters but also with each other, PK is a tool to prevent others from advancing on the ladder.

2. There must be something at stake for the PKer too. This obviously means that you don't want to have a level 90 killing of a bunch of level 15s, but to really have a good balance in this is going to be difficult, I'll admit.

DestinMacabre

06-07-2008, 13:32

First encouraging cooperative gameplay doesn’t mean, as you seem to think, forcing cooperative gameplay nor is it equivalent to get rid of uncooperative gameplay.

Your points 1, 2, 4 and 5 are not arguments they are just examples of one idea. The point you’re making there is that there are many other ways to ruin the players fun. I totally agree on that, however it doesn’t constitute an argument of why PK should stay, it’s more an argument of “Hey Blizz guys you have a lot of work elsewhere to encourage cooperative gameplay”.
In these points you also listed the tools that could be used by a player to avoid PKs, it’s a lot of cautions you have to take to avoid people that I think are not a constructive part of the online gaming experience.
PKs are a nuisance and it is to the annoyed people to avoid the nuisance. I for myself think that it is easier, and morally better to severe the source of the nuisance for the sake of the majority.

One plays a game to have fun, while a game is not fun anymore, is it still a game? I don’t think so. The aim of PKs is to ruin the fun of the others, so it constitutes an anti-gaming behavior. That’s true you cannot stop anti-social behaviors in games simply because these behaviors are part of the society and not only inherent to the game. However you can fight against anti-gaming attitude by simply not giving tools to these people in the design of the game.

To sum this all up: it’s not because there are greater evils that you shouldn’t eradicate the lesser ones.

In the point 3, you demonstrated why the entire PvP system will have to be revamped and the restrictions it could lead to. To me it’s no big deal to revamp a system, after all they’re revamping the whole game to make a NEW one.
My suggestion to this new model is to make some sort of arenas where PvP duelers could fight each other and a system to make PvP tournaments. This would please duelers because of improved service while taking a wheight off the shoulders of the casual gamers that don’t want to bother of fun-ruiners each time they’re playing online.

Point 6: the fact that PK occurs less often in SC is still not an argument why PK should stay in the game, and you still present it as a nuisance. If I understood you well, you’re simply fearing that the new PvP system will be frustrating. I don’t see the cases where it could prove frustrating, besides you cannot PK anymore, and if you were not there will be no problem as long as you can still duel in good conditions. Have a little faith in the game designers you could be surprised how you’ll end up loving the new system.

Points 7 and 8:
I wouldn’t make you the injure to remind you that PvP and PvM builds and gears usally differ to a wide scale, so a PK which is designed to kill players has a quite unfair advantage because he is attacking you whithout a strong risk of dying himself. PKs are acting as predators on relatively defenseless preys, and you are blaming the prey for not being a bit more careful. And I’m also terribly sorry if don’t want my freedom of movement to be restricted because of annoying people, I’m reffering here to your “build a wall around yourself” moto, ie private games.
You’re denying the freedom of choice of people, that is the freedom to make their own virtual life in danger. Do you really think that in D3 there will not be enough chalenge to stay alive ?

Thank you for point 9 it made me laugh.

Point 10:
Your analysis of the reason of more cooperative gameplay in HC (ie: afraid of beeing Pked by teammates) denotes a fear-driven world where the only option and solution is violence. Don’t you think that one can be nice just because it’s the better way to survive to the game chalenge because you’ll get party members willing to save you, and not because you fear a lethal retailing ?

I don’t have an opinion on 11,12 and 14.

Point 13:
Here comes my favourite part, at last. Let me sum it up to be sure: you are invoking realism for a game that takes place in fantasy world with magic and monsters ? Sorry for poking you, too much tempting. You spoke of realism in terms of multiplayer intercations. Well I can’t remember a society where people are allowed to assasinate others whitout breaking the law. If you wanted to push the realism further, there should be a police.
To me the key thing why PKs are so hated is their IMPUNITY ! Implement a bandit status, a system of reward where PKs are hunted by bounty hunters and I’ll be a bit more inclined to let PK in the game.

You also tend to present PK as a part of the formula of the addiction to the game. I don’t think so, as one can play single player for years and still be addict. In my opinion, in terms of addiction, the by far most important functionnality is Magic Find.

I’ll just quote specifically this sentence from you: “Getting rid of PK, making more restrictions on PvP, making HC so much easier...”. You begin with the fact “getting rid of PK”, you’re making as if this necessarly implies more restrictions to PvP and that it is a bad thing. Let me just say that from restrictions can rise a greater freedom for the vast majority. This is how society work: abandonning a portion of its individual freedom to rights. Then you end up your demonstration by a speculation that it will make HC easier. Once again, you’re forgetting that it is D3 and not D2, maybe there will be other chalenges that will keep the entertaining running, so you can’t be that affirmative.

Point 15:
Sorry but I’ll quote only a part of your sentence because it’s the most interesting part:” If you can come up with a way that PK illegitimately ruined your fun”. Those complaining about PK in D2 shouldn’t complain about PKs but instead about the game design itself. Killing other players is part of the design of the game, but there are two ways duelling and PK. Duelling is considered the good part because people are willing to engage the fight and PK is the evil part because it denies the agreement and PKs have a quite complete impunity.

This leads us to a question are PKs deviant ? In my opinion PKs are a designed part of the game but a design flaw. They are legit enthronned by the game design. So this argument of yours is good, but not for the purpose you used it. It is good to shut the mouth of the whinning players of D1 and D2 but absolutely no good to justify to carry this functionnality over in D3.

I’ll end up my post, at last should the brave readers sigh, by pointing out that PKs are not just fun-ruiners, in HC they’re also ruinning the work, the achievement of people. The added thrill you’re defending seems really thin in balance.

Arkansaw

06-07-2008, 14:02

Moonstalker

06-07-2008, 19:24

First post on this forum, just decided it to be here :P

My suggestion for this would simply add different channels, that, if like Diablo II, will bring up a new list of games (rather then all one list regardless of what channel you are in).

If you're in a PvP channel, the PvP games can be there, and same goes for PvE. If a player does not want to be ganked while doing something, they can be there, but if they don't care whether they do or not, they can be in a non-labeled channel.
Just an idea :D

etslayer

06-07-2008, 19:42

WOW the pro pk crowd has bad bad bad arguments.

Argument 1) there are worse things than pking, so pking is fine.
2) Pking isn't bad because it can be avoided.
3) if you oppose pking you just want a wimpy crybaby game.

Every point brought up by the pro PK crowd so far can be boiled down to one of those issues.

Actually, you are taking my points out of context.
1) I am not saying that it's fine because there are worse things. I am trying to say that there are many ways of ruining someone's fun which would make no sense to get rid of. Swearing in a game can ruin someone's fun. Must we eliminate swearing from diablo games?

2) Since PK is a legitimate part of the game, (deliberately allowed by the developers) if it is not enjoyed, it should be avoided. If it were impossible to avoid that's one thing, but it's actually very easy to avoid if you don't want to participate.

3) No, you are just unaware or simply don't care about how the ability to PK is a necessary run-off of the D2 PvP system. If you want PK out, you should be talking about taking away non-consentual hostiles entirely. But then you have to justify dissapointing everyone who likes PvP as it is. Separating PK from PvP is like separating boss-running from PvM. You can't take one out without watering down the other.

Considering the fact that PKing is not a form of cheating, hacking or breaking any rules whatsoever, these are perfectly legitimate arguments. Just because one group doesn't like an aspect of the game that was deliberatly added by the developers, it doesn't mean it must be removed. So far the ONLY argument for getting rid of PK is that it can potentially ruin somebody's fun. However removing it would ruin the fun of many others, and I am NOT talking about people who hunt down other players just to be spiteful. I am talking about people who like the PvP system as it is.

Revamping the PvP for SC might make sense, but Blizzard should leave the HC format as it is, therefore leave PK in HC.

Tomtah

06-07-2008, 19:55

Ofc they're gonna have PK, maybe they will have pve/pvp server like in wow but leaving PK out would be CRAZY, no pvp would kill the game for sure.

cbr

06-07-2008, 20:25

Ofc they're gonna have PK, maybe they will have pve/pvp server like in wow but leaving PK out would be CRAZY, no pvp would kill the game for sure.

They will not have PvE/PvP servers simply because there won't be servers like in WoW. You will connect to Battlenet, just like you did in D2 and you can choose your realm. USwest, USeast, Europe and Asia. That's it, there won't be any other choices.

The reason they couldn't do with with WoW is because WoW is much more server intensive so they had to split the load between many servers which allows them to make them PvE, PvP or RP.

With D3 they'll keep the comunities together just like D2.

Nimbostratus

06-07-2008, 20:36

Actually, you are taking my points out of context.
1) I am not saying that it's fine because there are worse things. I am trying to say that there are many ways of ruining someone's fun which would make no sense to get rid of. Swearing in a game can ruin someone's fun. Must we eliminate swearing from diablo games?
So you're saying that just because other ways can't be fixed, this way should be left unfixed even though it's fairly easy to fix? What?

2) Since PK is a legitimate part of the game, (deliberately allowed by the developers) if it is not enjoyed, it should be avoided. If it were impossible to avoid that's one thing, but it's actually very easy to avoid if you don't want to participate.
Just because it's an easy solution doesn't mean it's a good solution. Saying that private games is a good solution because it's easy is like saying closing an axe wound with duct tape is a good solution because it's easy. I find it absurd that players in hardcore have to cut themselves off from the rest of the population just to avoid PKers. PKers are impossible to avoid in public HC games; you WILL encounter them. And as for it being a legitimate part of the game, who cares? Skill systems, gameplay mechanics, and maybe even controls are all subject to change. D3 isn't just going to be D2 with a new storyline and flashier graphics. Look at the differences between D1 and D2.

3) No, you are just unaware or simply don't care about how the ability to PK is a necessary run-off of the D2 PvP system. If you want PK out, you should be talking about taking away non-consentual hostiles entirely. But then you have to justify dissapointing everyone who likes PvP as it is. Separating PK from PvP is like separating boss-running from PvM. You can't take one out without watering down the other.
You keep saying that removing PKing will make PVP utter crap, yet you never explain HOW. All they have to do is make it so both players have to click the hostile button. What does that involve? Oh wow, the other guy has to click "hostile" too, such a disaster! Heck, they could even implement "auto-accept" for hostiling, for players who still want the possibility of being PKed.

Just because one group doesn't like an aspect of the game that was deliberatly added by the developers, it doesn't mean it must be removed. So far the ONLY argument for getting rid of PK is that it can potentially ruin somebody's fun. However removing it would ruin the fun of many others, and I am NOT talking about people who hunt down other players just to be spiteful. I am talking about people who like the PvP system as it is.
Do you realize that you are using the exact same argument you're bashing? Keep in mind that there are a LOT more people whose fun would be ruined by a PKer than there are people whose fun would be ruined by not having PKing. And realize that for all the people in HC you see that like the possibility of PK, there are a lot more people that you don't see. There are probably tons of people in private HC games and tons more that went back to SC after they were discouraged and frustrated with HC because of PKers.

5zigen

06-07-2008, 21:42

Actually, you are taking my points out of context.

No, I wasn't. I think you are just failing to see the realities of your own arguments.

1) I am not saying that it's fine because there are worse things. I am trying to say that there are many ways of ruining someone's fun which would make no sense to get rid of. Swearing in a game can ruin someone's fun. Must we eliminate swearing from diablo games?

Uh, no there aren't, and that's not what you were saying. You made the argument that you shouldn't inhibit racist speech and cursing because of free speech, however every post D2 game has had a speech filter filtering out exactly these things.

Furthermore, you're looking at it from a view that only your proposed solution to these other problems can work when that simply isn't the case. Sorry but there are many ways to tackle the swearing problem that don't impede someones fun, not only from the developers point of view (chat filters) but from the players point of view (/ignore).

2) Since PK is a legitimate part of the game, (deliberately allowed by the developers) if it is not enjoyed, it should be avoided. If it were impossible to avoid that's one thing, but it's actually very easy to avoid if you don't want to participate.

Sure, it is easy to avoid, but you are once again ignoring the big fact of this. Avoiding PKing has severe negative consequences. You turn a largely fun social game, to a single player game w/ trading added. What you're not understanding is that avoiding PKing isn't fun and taking the only measures viable to do so (PW games) has a largely negative affect on the community.

3) No, you are just unaware or simply don't care about how the ability to PK is a necessary run-off of the D2 PvP system. If you want PK out, you should be talking about taking away non-consentual hostiles entirely. But then you have to justify dissapointing everyone who likes PvP as it is. Separating PK from PvP is like separating boss-running from PvM. You can't take one out without watering down the other.

Don't start telling me what I am and am not aware of. I know some people like non consented pvp (that's actually what we're talking about here) but at what point is the fun of the minority more important than the fun of the majority?

Trust me, a majority of people don't like it when a pk comes in their game and they have to either stop playing and idle in town, or make a new game.

You can take one out without watering down the other. It isn't in any way like the boss running analogy you seem to want to compare it to.

Considering the fact that PKing is not a form of cheating, hacking or breaking any rules whatsoever, these are perfectly legitimate arguments. Just because one group doesn't like an aspect of the game that was deliberatly added by the developers, it doesn't mean it must be removed. So far the ONLY argument for getting rid of PK is that it can potentially ruin somebody's fun. However removing it would ruin the fun of many others, and I am NOT talking about people who hunt down other players just to be spiteful. I am talking about people who like the PvP system as it is.

Revamping the PvP for SC might make sense, but Blizzard should leave the HC format as it is, therefore leave PK in HC.

They're perfectly legitimate arguments, they're just Bad arguments. Every argument you've made so far has been based on a partial comparative straw-man or fallacy.

You have a nice thesis at the end, but that isn't supported by any evidence or fact.

Why get rid of pking?

1. Because it ruins the fun of people who don't want to be pk'd and end up dying.

2. Because it slows the game down when people have to stop playing or make a new game to avoid them.

3. Because it is a completely imbalanced practice and the typical pve character has zero chance against a similarly leveled pvp character.

4. Because the only way to truly avoid PKing has a very negative effect on the community (particularly in hardcore where it's harder to make friends because of 90% of actual games being PW games)

5. Because it opens up huge potential for exploits like TPPK, Townkill and all sorts of other unintended greifing.

6. Because the pve / pvp community combined is much much larger than the pk community.

7. Because there is no possibility of punitive action on the pk, and no realistic way for the player to fight back. I.E. the pk has nothing to lose, while whoever they are killing probably will lose something.

If you would like I could do as you did in your first post and restate my ideas in different wording to expand my points to a list of 15, I could even add some stramwans like "it's not realistic to allow pk's" and such, but I wont, as I feel those 7 points are both good, varied and strong enough that you wont have any arguments against them other than what you had in your first post.

Thank you for your time.

etslayer

06-07-2008, 22:40

So you're saying that just because other ways can't be fixed, this way should be left unfixed even though it's fairly easy to fix? What?

Nope. I am saying there are many factors which some people find unlpleasant, but that's not a reason to remove them. Swearing could also be easily removed from the game with chat filters. But do you really want swearing to be removed? After all, going off on people is not exactly "cooperative". PK is no different. There will always be factors about a game that annoy people. That's just reality.

Just because it's an easy solution doesn't mean it's a good solution. Saying that private games is a good solution because it's easy is like saying closing an axe wound with duct tape is a good solution because it's easy. I find it absurd that players in hardcore have to cut themselves off from the rest of the population just to avoid PKers. PKers are impossible to avoid in public HC games; you WILL encounter them. And as for it being a legitimate part of the game, who cares? Skill systems, gameplay mechanics, and maybe even controls are all subject to change. D3 isn't just going to be D2 with a new storyline and flashier graphics. Look at the differences between D1 and D2.

Yes, things are subject to change. I already knew this. The debate is whether this change is necessary.

Once again, you are using the argument that just because you don't want to run into PKers, that the game should be changed. Hardcore mode is about not only avoiding getting killed by monsters, but avoiding getting killed by other players. Picking and choosing which players can attack you is no different than picking and choosing which monsters can attack you. As with monsters, if you run into one that is too strong, it will kill you unless you run. On HC other players are considered obstacles just like monsters. Online HC is not only meant to test your character against monsters. That is what single player/private games are for. It is not obsurd to say that HC players who want to avoid other players should go out of there way to do so. HC is as much PvP as it is PvM. If you want to avoid other players, that's exactly what you should do. Avoid them.

You keep saying that removing PKing will make PVP utter crap, yet you never explain HOW. All they have to do is make it so both players have to click the hostile button. What does that involve? Oh wow, the other guy has to click "hostile" too, such a disaster! Heck, they could even implement "auto-accept" for hostiling, for players who still want the possibility of being PKed.

I already explained in this thread why imposing mutual hostiles would ruin HC PvP. If you can pick which players you are immune to, there is less insentive to get the best gear and make the strongest character possible. This makes PvP a lot less exciting in HC. In HC, other players are just as big a threat as monsters. This is a crucial aspect of hardcore play. If you don't want the maximum challenge, don't play HC online or in public HC games. Removing this aspect of PvP just because you don't want the challenge is obsurd.

As for your auto-accept idea... that's already venturing into a whole new debate. Saying that people who don't want the option don't have to use it is obsurd. That's like saying that there should be no hardcore mode because people can just retire their character after their first death on softcore if they want that challenge. Let's not get into that debate.

Do you realize that you are using the exact same argument you're bashing? Keep in mind that there are a LOT more people whose fun would be ruined by a PKer than there are people whose fun would be ruined by not having PKing. And realize that for all the people in HC you see that like the possibility of PK, there are a lot more people that you don't see. There are probably tons of people in private HC games and tons more that went back to SC after they were discouraged and frustrated with HC because of PKers.

There are many things wrong with this statement.
a) I am not using the same argument I am bashing. I am arguing that simply stating "PK ruined my fun" is not good enough. You have to give reasons for why PK should be removed, because the PK supporters can say the exact same thing (that removing PK ruins their fun). who is right? That's the whole purpose of this debate.
b) you have no proof that there are way more people who want PK out. But even if you're right about that, it's not a valid argument. Out of these people there is no telling how many actually experienced D2 in great depth and would know what is actually good for the game. So let's stay away from the majority-rules debate. After all, the majority of future D3 players are probably more familiar with WoW than D2. There is a good chance that many of them want a game that is a WoW clone. Should Blizzard consider making a WoW clone to suit the majority? No. Because the majority does not necessarely know what made D2 great.
c) "There are probably tons of people in private HC games and tons more that went back to SC after they were discouraged and frustrated with HC because of PKers."
Yeah.. so? Once again, you are saying that they should get rid of PK because some people were frustrated with it. Well there were lots of people who left HC because they were frustrated by getting killed my monsters too. I don't see your point.

zooply

06-07-2008, 23:14

Invalid. Fallacy: Argument from ignorance,argument from dire consequences, red herring and potentially a false dichotomy.

If your arguments have devolved into catch phrases like, "Have fun playing that kiddy load of ****", I think we're done here.

Those two statements don't seem to fit together. :scratchchin:

OP i support your cause but you are only asking for the CBs to crawl out

Way to add to the conversation. :alright:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

To the OP: Despite whether I agree with you or not, it's nice to see an attempt at starting up a civil debate about the topic.

To all the people in this thread: I'm not for PK, but one of the points that has been brought up in defense of it does concern me somewhat. Namely the benefits from non-consensual PvP (which of course PK derives from). Jerks will inevitably show up in PvE games, such as a necro bonewalling narrow corridors, somebody going after a quest boss, or the guy grabbing every single potion and drinking them. In D2 you can just hostile them and cleave them with your axe. Without it you either have to A) remake the party without them, B) make a new game or C) just pretend they're not there. Of course you may be able to fix this with a voting system that kicks people out.

SirMoogie

06-07-2008, 23:19

Also I wanted to give props to moogie and mythor and overused for doing such wonderful jobs of dismantling the original post. Particularly moogie and overused. Are you guys law students or something?

Cognitive science, with a focus on AI. I also have taken several logic courses.

Neferim

06-07-2008, 23:55

A solution that I think most people could agree with is the ability to flag your game upon creation as a pk game. The default for games would be consentual hostility where both players agree to go pvp, but in a game flagged for pk, the default would be everyone is hostile, though partying would make it so you couldn't hurt each other. This seems like a win-win situation, since those who don't like pk can play regular games without fear of getting PKed, but retain the option of dueling if they feel so inclined. If, on the other hand, you are the sort that enjoys the threat of another player attacking you, you can join/create a game flagged for pk.

The only situation I can think of where this would NOT be acceptable is if your game plan consists of preying on people who specifically DO NOT like pk just so you can ruin that person's game. People who play a game only to ruin it for others should not be a top priority when considering game features. The idea of flagged games is not new, and I'm pretty sure it's been brought up in this thread. My question to pro-PK players is: what harm would implementing this system do? Once again, the only people I can see who would be displeased with this system are those who demand unwilling participants to kill strictly for griefing purposes.

Arkansaw

07-07-2008, 00:12

etslayer

07-07-2008, 00:37

1. Because it ruins the fun of people who don't want to be pk'd and end up dying.

I have already stated dozens of times that saying "it ruins my fun" is not a valid argument. Anybody can say this about anything. Everyone has their own idea of what is fun. I don't want to be killed by dclone. After all, I never asked dclone to spawn in my game, why should he be able to kill me?

2. Because it slows the game down when people have to stop playing or make a new game to avoid them.

Dying to monsters also slows the game down. On HC other players are obstacles just like monsters.

3. Because it is a completely imbalanced practice and the typical pve character has zero chance against a similarly leveled pvp character.

By entering a public HC game, you expose yourself to PvP attacks. If you feel your character can't take on PvP chars, then use a password or play with friends. Why should everybody that likes the challenge of non-consentual hostiles be forced to miss out on this because some other players want an easier form of HC for their own interest? PvP and PvM go hand in hand in HC.

4. Because the only way to truly avoid PKing has a very negative effect on the community (particularly in hardcore where it's harder to make friends because of 90% of actual games being PW games)

This is just the nature of HC. People are very cautious. I too often played in private games to avoid other players. But I would never have wanted to be restricted to playing without non-consentual hostiles. Lot's of people play in private games most of the time, and then start playing in public games when their character is ready to handle all multiplayer situations (aka experiencing the true nature of HC). There is nothing wrong with this, but it's something that is unavoidable in a truley hardcore game. The only way to make people less cautious is by making the game easier by only allowing consentual hostiles. This would lead to more public games, but it would also be a way of catering to those who want an easier game that they have to be less cautious in playing. It would also completely change PvP for all HC players. And btw, I never thought that HC had a weak community up until the later years when the game was generally declining in popularity.

5. Because it opens up huge potential for exploits like TPPK, Townkill and all sorts of other unintended greifing.

TPPK can easily be removed without removing PK. Check out the original post.
Keep in mind that townkilling is something that you mainly only see in dueling games. I say that in HC, if you join a dueling game you should be prepared for any kind of attack. Townkilling is incredibly annoying on SC, and I agree that it should be removed from that game. But on HC I don't think people should be limited in the number of ways they can kill someone ESPECIALLY in a dueling game (keep in mind that since townkilling is only a real issue in dueling games, we have to think about it in the context of dueling games and not regular public games). In HC, the more ways someone can be sneeky in a dueling game, the greater the element of suspense. After all, isnt HC all about suspense?

6. Because the pve / pvp community combined is much much larger than the pk community.

There is no PK community. As I said earlier in this thread, all PvP is PK because there is no in-game mechanism for giving consent when you are hostiled. The game doesn't know or care if there is verbal consent. To get rid of PK would be to revamp the current PvP system, hence, affecting the entire PvP community. Oh and for your information the PvP community is much greater than the PvE-only community. Especially amongst dedicated players. So let's just stay away from the rediculous majority-rules arguments.

7. Because there is no possibility of punitive action on the pk, and no realistic way for the player to fight back. I.E. the pk has nothing to lose, while whoever they are killing probably will lose something.

OK yes, running into a PKer who is stronger than you is a road-block. And yes, if the PKer is much stronger than you they don't have anything to lose. But people should be free to challenge whoever they want to challenge because it is a competative game. Much more so than SC. You can prevent them from challenging you by playing with friends or in passworded games. But for people like me who want to play in a truly "hardcore" game, we WANT to know that we can be challenged by anyone at any time. I know that, personally, I would not have much fun playing on HC if I can pick and choose which players I am vulnerable against just because there is a chance that they will be stronger than me.

5zigen

07-07-2008, 01:14

Man I cant even respond to you etslayer.

You seriously just make a strawman argument for everything and in the end you don't end up arguing the merits, you just compare it to something that is generally not similar and call it ridiculous. Just to let you know, that's not a good way to argue a point.

And just to let you know, there is a PK community (EX BtK and the idiots in Blue Moon) that is not the same as the PvP community (LLD / Dueling brackets, tournaments and clubs). People may be part of both communities, but they aren't the same.

You keep making these assertions that removing non consentual PvP would ruin PvP in general, yet you never explain why or how that is true.

You keep talking about PvM risks like they're the same as PvP risks when it's already been described to you 4 times in this thread why they aren't even close to the same, or even analogous.

You keep touting the fact that you can prevent even running into pk's but you still ignore that by preventing them you are compromising the social aspect of the game to large degree.

And despite what you think, the fact that it inhibits what most people think of as "fun" is a perfectly valid argument, and in light of how many people prefer to not have their game screwed with by degenerates and not have to compromise what they think of fun just to enable someone else to have 'fun' is becomes a quite potent argument.

Anyhow, I'm done here.

You really aren't making arguments, you're simply constructing and burning down strawmen.

Nimbostratus

07-07-2008, 01:33

You keep ragging about how disallowing PK "caters to people who want an easier game." What exactly is so wrong about that? Some people DON'T like the risk of random people killing their characters. Why do you keep telling players they have to make passworded games? That is VERY unfair to the masses who don't want to risk PKing. Why not instead of having just HC and SC, have HCPK, SCPK, HC, and SC?

You also keep mentioning D2 being competitive. If the ladder is for people reaching level 99, why are people of ANY level over 8 being picked off, and not just the people in the high 80s and above that actually pose a "threat"? And you can't say it's for the drops, since 1) killing other players reduces the player count in the game, and 2) they can make a private game to get all the drops, like anybody else who wants to run for items does. Besides, drops are irrelevant in D3 because everybody gets their own.

And if you're going to say PKing is the same as regular PVP, you might as well say that every single player is the same because they're all playing the game. Just because the mechanics are the same doesn't mean there isn't a difference. And so what if somebody doesn't want to duel because they know they aren't any match for the other guy? You mean that he HAS to sacrifice his character to the other player? He can just chalk it up as a forfeit.

Why do you keep treating PVM as the same threat level as PKing? It definitely isn't the same. You can expect hard monsters, but you know that they are at least made to be somewhat balanced. And if a pack really is too hard for you, you can go to a different area, since unless they're really fast, they can't track you down. PKers on the other hand are purpose-built to kill characters in a single hit, and WILL actively hunt you down. Yes, there are some things in PVM that can end up 1-hitting you, but those are the rare times when all the worst unique mods spawn together, and are really just the exception, not the rule. Even if you don't consider extra fast/strong/aura frenzytaurs to be the exception, that still leaves the fact that PKers can do their work at any point in the game, even the blood moor.

etslayer

07-07-2008, 01:38

Actually I have explained countless times why removing non-consentual hostiles ruins PvP in HC. There is no point in me explaining it over and over again. Just read the previous posts.

Whether you like it or not, PvP and PvM DO go hand in hand in HC. If you can't understand that it means you never played much HC.

Just because you don't know how to rebutt arguments, doesn't mean I am using strawmen.

Nimbostratus, if you are competing with ladder characters, it doesn't matter what level they are. You are still competing with them. Utilze the level restrict if you want to avoid getting PK'd by high levels.

And I never said anyone HAS to sacrifice their character. The great thing about the current PvP system is that anyone can challenge anyone, but nobody has to stand up to them if they don't want to. However, what you are suggesting is that everyone should be imune to everyone until they choose to duel them. I am saying this makes HC very lame because there is no actual threat outside of PvM, whereas in the current system the PvP threat is just as important as the PvM threat. That is the essense of HC and if you don't like it then you don't like HC. Play private games with friends if you want to play your own version of HC.

If someone decides to build a character for the sole purpose of hunting people down while they are questing, I do not agree with this playing style. But PK is simply a run-off of the current PvP system which can be abused. But to get rid of it would be to destroy the PvP aspect of HC. The developers knew that they would be making this trade off, and they saw it as a fair trade to maintain the PvP aspect of HC as it stands today.

Neferim

07-07-2008, 01:59

In all seriousness etslayer, I would like to hear your reasons, if any, for why a pvp system like the one I proposed would be worse than the one currently implemented in Diablo 2. I'm not going to get into point-by-point or endless quote-fests with you, because I know that those types of discussions never go anywhere, as has been demonstrated in this thread. Rather, I have presented an idea for a change to the pvp system, and I would just like to hear your thoughts on that proposal. Particularly, I would like to hear the downsides to it, since it seems like a simple change that satisfies everyone except for pure griefers. Now, it may be your position that griefers have the highest priority as far as who gets to have fun, and that's fine, I'd just like to have your opinion on the change to the pvp system clarified.

Arkansaw

07-07-2008, 02:13

He is just hijacking the meaning of hardcore for his own purposes. Hardcore in D2 (not to speculate on how it will be implemented in D3) is the same as regular gameplay, just that you stay dead, nothing more and nothing less. Anything else is simply a result of his perception and imagination. PK as what it is in D2 was never touted as a major selling point, and HC is not actually designed for just PK in mind. The flawed implementation of both features in D2 just happened to attract too many of these sociopaths with grieving tendencies, a situation that Blizzard has thankfully expressed an inclination to contain in D3.

maxusmag

07-07-2008, 02:15

No what you are saying is i want to the ability to gank whoever i want to whenever i want to regardless of what the other person wants.

to me this is a petty selfish and immature attitude to make. Fortuantly you are not on the dev staff. The dev staff has realized that pk'ing is a bad game mechanic to have.

Which it is. if you want to pvp then make a pvp game. showing up unannounced in a pve game and ganking the entire group because you want to be a immature punk most people do not want.

More so in hardcore if you die then it is over. if you want to duel in HC then it really should be concentual given the risks at stake. you should not be able to go and just hostile anyone at will.

you can give any reason you want to unfortuantly your arguements are horribly weak and you give nothing to back them up with.

I am glad that blizzard is taking a different stance in this game. It got old having to deal with the hat's that have your mentality in the game.

i shouldn't have to create a private game to avoid being pked. maybe i want people to join my game so i can do more advanced things my character isn't ready for. maybe because grouping earns me more xp than it does solo.
(faster kills = more xp)

the only reason you would want this is to grief other players which i am sure is against the TOS and is a banable offense.

etslayer

07-07-2008, 02:25

Neferim I think your system would be good on softcore because it lets people choose how they want to implement PvP into their game. But I would not want to see this sort of system on HC.

On hardcore I believe that everyone should be subject to the same PvP rules. I don't want to have the option of having consentual-only hostiles in my game because I would always use this option unless I was in a particular mood for PvP. However I want to know that I am always vulnerable to other players, because otherwise I just would not have much drive to have the strongest character on HC.

It wouldn't bother me if a similar system to yours were implemented on HC except that PK and non-PK were separated by realm and players can't go back and forth between realms. One realm for non-consentual hostile and another for consentual-only geared to those who don't want the maximum difficulty that the current HC system provides.

maxusmag

07-07-2008, 02:30

You do not understand what hardcore really means then do you.

HC was a game mechanic that people wanted that real threat of danger they could play. why? because instead of respawning you lose your character.

it was like a real role playing game. you had to be careful not because of someone like you but because if you were over ran by mobs then you died and lost all your stuff and had to start over.

HC refers to that not your warped definition.

etslayer

07-07-2008, 02:34

Maxusmag, I never advocated going into a game and killing people who are just trying to quest. However it is impossible to prevent this without removing non-consentual hostility entirely. Either that or make specified dueling areas. Both of these solutions would work for softcore, but not in hardcore because it completely removes the threat of other players. As a long-time HC fan I would be very dissapointed if I didn't have to worry about getting attacked by other players. It waters down the game too much for me and makes it completely unsuspenseful. Maybe not to you, but all you guys really care about is your own fun. Also, you are just spewing the recycled arguments of every single person who demands that PK be impossible in D3. You have not made any novel arguments that I have not already adressed.

Neferim

07-07-2008, 02:53

I don't understand why you want a game designed such that you are not always able to play the game you want to play. The system I laid out works for everyone except the griefer. If you think hardcore is synonymous with PK, then when you play hardcore characters, only make/join games that have pk enabled. You're basically saying that people who just want to cause other players grief get higher priority than people who want to play hardcore mode but ALSO want to choose to play PvM if they would like to.

Why wouldn't the system I have laid work for hardcore? If you feel that hardcore players should only play in pk games, then when you play hardcore, only join/host pk games. Why are you so concerned about what other hardcore players want to do? Let me rephrase that.

Why do the actions of hardcore players that would NOT be interfering with your gameplay matter to you? My system would not hinder your gameplay style, only enable other people to play the games they want to play, EXCEPT the griefer. You said that if you had the option to play with consensual-only pvp in hardcore mode, you would always use it unless you were in the mood for pvp. Isn't that the whole point? To be able to play the game you want to play? I don't see the downside.

etslayer

07-07-2008, 03:11

Neferim,
I don't think that a game should conform to how someone wants to play at any given time. I think there should be a set of rules layed out and everyone has to follow them. If you have certain games that are flagged for pk it means that nobody is truley vulnerable to PvP because they can always choose to make a game where nobody can attack them. This does not work for HC because nobody should be invulnerable to other players. There is no such thing as PvM-only HC unless you are playing in single-player or in password games.

Neferim

07-07-2008, 03:28

You seem to be mistaking hardcore mode for my proposed PK-flag mode. Making a hardcore character does not mean you agree to be PKed at another player's whim, it just means that you want real consequences for screwing up. You seem to be offended at the idea that someone would want to play PvM with a hardcore character. Why deny people that option? Yes, they can play single-player or private games, but why deny them the ability to play PvM hardcore with other people, even people they don't know?

My system doesn't deny anyone anything. The point is, people who share your view still get what they want: PK enabled games. The people who like hardcore PvM also get what they want. I guess what I'm really having trouble understanding is why you are so opposed to an option that lets everyone play the game they want. I know the game doesn't HAVE to conform to everyone's playstyle, but if it can ALLOW those playstyles without denying anyone what they want, what's the downside?

Arkansaw

07-07-2008, 03:29

Anathema

07-07-2008, 03:48

Leaving a game when someone enters...OK, let's assume you are at a mall, and an annoucement comes over the loudspeaker "Murderer now in the building". Would you leave? Sure. Would you go back? No.

Why do you assume that just because it is SC it is OK? It is still a pain in the you-know-what, still wastes time, and is still annoying! Not the same as HC, of course, but still annoying. Plus if you lose an Elite or Set item because of it, grr...(actually, I don't remember if you lose items in your inventory on death, so that may not be a consideration)

1. Lets assume though, that you're not just some dude holding your girls purse at the mall- you're a wizard or a dude with an axe and the skills to use it. sure, old murderer is too, but hey, its a video game. split his head. I found magic finders who would go into games and kill all the bosses WAY more troublesome than pk ever was. Shoplifters?

2. I think I was pk'd maybe 10 times in 3 years of playing this game. I never played HC (doesn't appeal to me). But I agree with the op on this, PK is not the issue its made out to be, and its a part of the diablo feeling. about the items.. you might corpse pop, but thats your fault buddy. otherwise you'll only lose an item if you allow loot, which is only worthwhile in HC and shouldnt even be in SC.

EDIT- I've rethought my position on HC pk'ing. it does add realism. but damn, i would be furious if i lost any character because of some shady guy. level 9 or 90, i'd be mad. not to say it should be removed, but harder to just off someone. not that its usually real easy now.

Arkansaw

07-07-2008, 04:05

The PK that pple talk about in Diablo 2 is mostly characterized by the prevalence of hacks and manifestation of griefing and significant social disruption in public games, it is not really PK although some pple who really love things this way, and over time, such things have come to define what should be PK in the eyes of these pple.

Anathema

07-07-2008, 04:10

again, I would consider significant griefing to be the magic finders who would join any old game and run andy, trav, and diablo. I mean I could make a game called "act 3 help" and someone would be by in minutes, wipe out travincal, and leave. That was common- i mean like 50% of my games had that happen. PK? whats that?

etslayer

07-07-2008, 04:14

There is no such thing as PvM-only HC unless you are playing in single-player or in password games? Simply because you said so? We shouldn't have the ability to keep pple like you out of the games we created ourselves in the hope of banding with other like-minded players in the public domain? Just because you want to have it your way with your subjective view of HC experience?

Are you arguing for the relevance of PK, or your supposed right to grief?

Whoah... people like me? I have clearly stated that I am not someone who goes out and kills people who are trying to quest. This is not the only form of PK.

Anyway... video games are designed for those who want to get the most out of them. However not everybody wants the full experience, which is why we have optional difficulty levels. In diablo, HC is the maximum difficulty, aimed at those who want the most challenging version of the game possible. Nevertheless, there many people, such as youself, who chose to play online HC even though they are not interested in the maximum difficulty. How is it fair that people who want to be vulnerable to all monsters AND players will not be able to have this just because some other HC players find it too difficult? I see public online HC as the hardest difficulty because PvP is implied and you are competing on the ladder as well. Private or single-player HC is the next harderst, and softcore is the easiest. You don't want to be vulnerable to other players? Well then public online HC is not the game for you.

Tai.

07-07-2008, 04:17

Alright, I've managed to stay mostly out of this but there's a few things I think need to be brought up.

People keep saying that PK is ruining Hardcore games. This blatantly untrue unless you want to change PK to TPPK. Normal difficulty, the classic hunting ground of the legit PK is the only place you can find a public game. The list is always full of people leveling together in Act 2, which would not be the case if the realms were truly swarming with PKs. You do notice a sharp drop off in public NM and Hell games, strangely enough that's the range where people get the damage skills necessary to efficiently TPPK and also the level where PvM characters start to put out enough damage to be a legitimate threat to PKers. It's strange that we find public games being made in the level range where legit PK has such an advantage over PvM but not later on when legit PK becomes less frequent. Personally I find it difficult to draw a correlation here to legit PKing ruining public games.

Neferim, my main issue with your system is that it would destroy legitimate PKing. I don't feel like fully reiterating my points, but here is my response from another thread where someone else proposed separate "PK" and "Non-PK" games:

Player A is looking to PK people with the character he is currently on, so he makes a "PK" game. If the games are on separate lists, he more than likely only has other PKers join, forcing him into a duel game instead of the intended hunt.

Player B wants to play cooperative only, so he clearly creates a "Non-PK" game and in his game there in clearly no PKing.

Player C (Me for example) has nothing against PK, but is not looking to PK on his current character. I am looking to get a decent group going, so I have no other option except to create a "Non-PK" game as if I create a "PK" game I'll get nothing but people specifically looking for that type of game (primarily PKs).

I can't see any other options at the moment (it is 5 am) besides these three and if you notice a trend, in none of the three variants is there an impending threat of being PKed while questing. Thus, from my point of view splitting games up into PK and Non will destroy the spirit of PKing.

Obviously if you can think of any other situations I would love to hear them, but it seems you are arguing from the assumption that "a large portion of people want to have PK as a part of the game, thus they will create PK allowing games" I feel this logic is a bit flawed, as it assumes people will willingly limit their community size in return for an additional challenge.

Also, I feel it should be acknowledged that if a PKer is on the hunt and has a list of say 6 games to choose from, all primarily filled with people looking to either PK themselves or PKK, the legit PK community will strangle because of a lack of targets. Eventually it will reach a point where there are not enough people to hunt and people will stop bothering to PK and we'll have a completely obsolete game setting and the death of legit PK.

There's a lot more, but I figure before I delve into it I should sound the waters and see just how much a problem you guys feel legit PK is. To that end I would like to ask each of you to tell me the last time you saw someone die to a legit PK on Battle.net. For myself, despite the fact that I play multiple hours a day, I have not seen a death to being hunted by a PKer this ladder season and have only heard of 3 despite the fact that I am friends with many of the legit PKers on East. Last ladder season I quit a few weeks before the reset was announced but, disregarding the little flurry of people dueling their characters en masse in anticipation of the reset, I only witnessed one legitimate PK related death and that was the result of someone trying to fight back against a charger using Noko/Spurs with their chanted bow - a calculated decision that failed.

Personally I don't feel PK is nearly as big of a problem on the realms as you are making it out to be and I love the fact that as a HC player my death can come from anywhere. I accept that risk when the game forcibly asks if I really want to make an HC character and the game would not be the same, nor nearly as addicting without that threat.

Please try to keep TPPK and PK separate in your minds. PK may force people to go to town on occasion and wait a few minutes to resume their run, which I personally view as an acceptable amount of "grief" as you seem so apt to call it. TPPK causes people to retreat to private games or safe haven channels and never venture out.

Before trigger scripts were rampant on the realms, public games were readily available. Private channels with restricted access existed, but were the vast minority. In this age of triggers I know of 3 private safe haven channels with a combined membership of more than 500 people and I'm sure more exist. The main safe haven channel on East has several highly trusted members who legitly PK and PKK and yet has had no problems with grief from these people.

Not all PKers are griefers, and they certainly aren't the ones ruining public games. I stay in my private channel most of the time recently, not out of fear of PK, not even out of fear of TPPK, but rather because I hate the uncooperative, infantile hack driven mindset that pervades public games.

Fix the hacks, give us regular maintenance and the problem will fix itself.

Cheers
-Tai

etslayer

07-07-2008, 04:28

Neferim,
I am not offended by people wanting to play PvM in HC. Why would I be offended by that? What I don't like is that many PvM players want to change the PvP system to make it completely separate from PvM. If people can chose to make a PvM only game, they are giving themselves a free-ride past all PvP challenges. This is perfectly understandable in softcore, but it is not the HC spirit. Despite your claim that signing up for hardcore is not an automatic agreement to be vulnerable to all monsters AND players, I would have to strongly disagree. I don't see the point in having online HC if there is no imposed challenge to deal with other players.

I want to also add that I would still rather have your system than no PK at all.

I love the fact that as a HC player my death can come from anywhere. I accept that risk when the game forcibly asks if I really want to make an HC character and the game would not be the same, nor nearly as addicting without that threat.

-Tai

THANK YOU. This is a point which I have been trying to make this entire time, but these guys completely ignore it. I am glad that I am not the only one who understands what makes HC so addictive.

Arkansaw

07-07-2008, 04:34

Tai's view is reasonable enough. I agree there's a difference between what we consider PK 'should be' and the 'PK' that is prevalent in D2 now. Unfortunately for many of us, our impression of PK is marred by the latter. I remember from my 1.09 uswest hardcore days that it was particularly bad, and things didn't change when I was playing on and off the 1.10 and 1.11 periods. It's just TPPK TPPK and more TPPK. Nothing ever new. But ever since I started playing on asia again for 1.12, I could notice a clear difference in public game atmosphere, it could be due to the different culture, or simply the current lack of players to make PK-ing exciting, I don't know, but there is definitely a difference. So I opine that for better or worse, PK in reality has gone terribly wrong in D2, and until they are able to rectify it in D3, I'm not too enthusiastic about it, simply because I never had much of a chance to appreciate the good things about it.

THANK YOU. This is a point which I have been trying to make this entire time, but these guys completely ignore it. I am glad that I am not the only one who understands what makes HC so addictive.

What Tai said was innocuous enough, it was your other arguments that are so often touted by D2 griefers that didn't get across very well.

etslayer

07-07-2008, 04:42

I'll accept that. Frankley, i don't really care about this topic anymore. If they take out all forms of PK from HC, I won't be playing HC, and that's that. I'll buy the game, but not very enthusiastically.

Neferim

07-07-2008, 04:49

Hmm, I had quite the post going here, but I realized I was essentially just paraphrasing something I read a long time ago, so I'll link it here, and summarize for those who don't feel like following the link.

http://sirian.warpcore.org/diablo2/protest-1.html

Now to summarize: The problem I have with the current pvp system is that it puts all of the power in the hands of the PKer. If I want to play a PvM game with other like-minded people (hardcore or not, I don't buy that hardcore automatically means "I want people to try to PK me") and a PKer joins the game, he can instantly ruin the game for me and everyone else I'm playing with by going hostile with everyone else in the game. Why should he have that power? I don't have the option to force him into my party and PvM with me for a while, so why should I be forced to stop playing the game until he goes away? What makes his game more important than mine, especially when his "game" is based around ruining the game other people are playing?

Q33

07-07-2008, 06:12

Player A is looking to PK people with the character he is currently on, so he makes a "PK" game. If the games are on separate lists, he more than likely only has other PKers join, forcing him into a duel game instead of the intended hunt.

Player B wants to play cooperative only, so he clearly creates a "Non-PK" game and in his game there in clearly no PKing.

Player C (Me for example) has nothing against PK, but is not looking to PK on his current character. I am looking to get a decent group going, so I have no other option except to create a "Non-PK" game as if I create a "PK" game I'll get nothing but people specifically looking for that type of game (primarily PKs).

I can't see any other options at the moment (it is 5 am) besides these three and if you notice a trend, in none of the three variants is there an impending threat of being PKed while questing. Thus, from my point of view splitting games up into PK and Non will destroy the spirit of PKing.

Obviously if you can think of any other situations I would love to hear them, but it seems you are arguing from the assumption that "a large portion of people want to have PK as a part of the game, thus they will create PK allowing games" I feel this logic is a bit flawed, as it assumes people will willingly limit their community size in return for an additional challenge.

Also, I feel it should be acknowledged that if a PKer is on the hunt and has a list of say 6 games to choose from, all primarily filled with people looking to either PK themselves or PKK, the legit PK community will strangle because of a lack of targets. Eventually it will reach a point where there are not enough people to hunt and people will stop bothering to PK and we'll have a completely obsolete game setting and the death of legit PK.

Ive stayed out of most of the arguing after I realized that certain pro-pkers were quite incapable of having a mature discussion (definitely not talking about you, Tai), but seeing a novel point has brought me out again.

Now, apparently one of the arguments for keeping PKing is because it adds a sense of urgency and danger lurking around ever corner, defining the experience of Diablo (I don't know if you in particular said this, but Ive been keeping up with the PKing threads and this was definitely mentioned numerous times). These people, for exampe etslayer, say they tend not to PK, but enjoy the danger associated with PKing being present. This would be player D, the PvE type who enjoy the added danger of PKing, even if they do not participate in the actual PKing. So there, there is a community of PvEs who will support PKing and will make games. Problem solved.

Now, one of your other points was the possible flawed assumption that a large portion of players want PKing. Whether flawed or not, if there is a large portion, then they can support themselves. If there is not a large portion supporting it, then it should be taken out to apease the majority.

On a side note I find this sentence " I feel this logic is a bit flawed, as it assumes people will willingly limit their community size" absolutely HILARIOUS. One of the pro-PKers main justification for keeping PKing in the game is that PvE people can simply make private passworded games to avoid PKing. If its too much to ask that the PKing community to support themselves, dont you think its a little ridiculous to ask all the PvE players to willingly only play in passworded games and limit their community size to those on their friends list?

In any case, lets say Im wrong about Player D, and he doesnt really exist. Or maybe player D doesnt exist in a large enough number to support the PKing community. And what you say does happen, Player A makes PK games, Player B makes non-PKing games, and Player C, who doesnt care is "forced" to go to non-PK games, effectively destroying PKing. In essence, what that is saying is that the PKing community doesnt care enough to support themselves. When they want to PvE (which they will have to at some point...their PKing characters dont level themselves), they should say to themselves "I Love Pking, I will make a PvE game for other pro-PKers to both PvE and PK in so I can support the continued existence of PKing." Then like minded pro-PKing people will join, either for PvE or PKing. Now, if PKing games still die out, that is simply because of a lack of caring within the PKing community. Pro-Pkers should be responsible for supporting their own community, not anyone else. Why in the world should I, as a PvE player, be forced to support a community if the Pkers don't even care enough to support themselves? That seems awfully selfish if you ask me.

You see, if your hypothetical example really happens, this signifies that PKing is really about ruining another players fun, NOT about the added danger and spirit of Diablo. Anyone who really thinks PKing is part of the Diablo spirit or thinks it adds excitement WILL create PK games to PvE in, even if they have no intention of PKing. Why? Because its the spirit of Diablo. Because its fun. Or so Ive been told. If they don't then theyre just hypocrites who want to kill others but hide when they want to PvE.

maxusmag

07-07-2008, 06:30

First off HC and PK are totally separate game mechanics that are in no way connected to each other. This is a major flaw in your arguement.

HC was designed so that the game acted like a real rpg type of game so if you did die that you totally lost your character and had to start over again.

the poor designing in D2 allowed someone to go hostile and you had no choice in the matter which is poor planning all the way around.

It should not be 1 persons supreme choice to hostile you.

you should have a flag that you can turn on nor off that allows people to hostile. that way if you want that danger you can keep your flag turned on.

if someone else comes into a game they can turn on their flag or they can hostile you if they wish. if their flag is not turned on then there is nothing you can do to them.

YOU should not be able to dictate how others play this game, and evidently blizzard doesn't agree with you either.

5zigen

07-07-2008, 07:24

YOU should not be able to dictate how others play this game, and evidently blizzard doesn't agree with you either.

I think this is the biggest point to be looked at. Before we get the hacking "analogy" for people who "want" to play the game like that, it's blizzard that says you cant cheat, not other players.

Baranor

07-07-2008, 10:43

1732 HC ears I have collected, all due to duelling and pk-ing, legit style. I know what I speak about.

I vote against non-conset player-versus-player fights, and against player-killing.

If it is in, I shall hunt and duel, if it is not in, I shall duel. But I'd prefer it to be out. Let PvP be for the PvP-ers, and let PvM be for the PvM-ers. In the end, if I had a choice, I'd rather see Diablo without the PK-ing aspect. Too much grief has come from it.

5zigen

07-07-2008, 10:49

1732 HC ears I have collected, all due to duelling and pk-ing, legit style. I know what I speak about.

I vote against non-conset player-versus-player fights, and against player-killing.

If it is in, I shall hunt and duel, if it is not in, I shall duel. But I'd prefer it to be out. Let PvP be for the PvP-ers, and let PvM be for the PvM-ers.

WOW, I never expected the legendary bears vote to fall on this side of the fence.

Baranor

07-07-2008, 11:16

Funny huh?

Before I was "Baranor, mass murderer" I was "Baranor, anti-cheat advocate and co-op gamer". If its all the same to everyone, I'd rather go back to that, and duel when I fancy a fight, with someone else armed to the teeth.

p.s. This does not mean I am anti-pk. Please note that this is not the same. I am fulyl willing and capable of using the pk-option in any game. And I shall, if it exists.

Crudesash68

07-07-2008, 11:35

We could all argue this point till the game comes out, but here is the bottom line, like it or not:

Blizzard has seen that a majority of its player base does not want PKing in their games. If they did, they would leave it as it is, and say "working as intended".

They have stated that Pking was an unintended aspect of PvP, and will thus be fixing that issue.

The split server system works very well in WoW, and however they tweak that for Bnet, I am sure it will work well also, most likely by flagging your game to allow PvP. If that is so, and a large community of people want to play that way, you will have a great deal of fun. If they don't want to play that way, you will not have as much fun, and while that sucks for you, the majority rules.

If you need another argument, ask yourself this: if you were creating a game, and your market research clearly showed that the fan base does not support unwanted PvP, would you still make the game that way?

Neferim

07-07-2008, 17:24

They have stated that Pking was an unintended aspect of PvP...

This is not true. I'm sure the current Blizzard employees working on Diablo 3 said this, but Blizzard North was not only aware of the PK aspect of their PvP system, they actually condoned PKing. In this way, PKing was certainly not "unintended" for Diablo 2. Here you go, from the link I posted before:

Diablo II and the expansion are the games that we at Blizzard want to play. That is our formula for success. Companies that design games based on focus groups, marketing opinions, and even fan input do not succeed. Although hearing the opinions of others are valuable to us, every design decision must pass the test of whether or not WE would want it in the game. In many cases, we've changed our minds after hearing compelling arguments. But we've decided that PKing is part of the Diablo universe. We are well aware that this does not please everyone. However, you are right: we are not apologetic about it. Not at all. Sure, we could implement a PK switch. It's a trivial coding task. But we wouldn't be being true to ourselves, and our goals as gamemakers.

Tai.

07-07-2008, 19:15

Thanks so much for that Neferim :) I was wondering where people were getting this talk about it being unintended or a mistake, but since so many people had mentioned it I assumed it was something the D3 developers had said.

It's good to know that the D2 team has given a ruling on this so that we can at least proceed from this point without people claiming there is no merit for PK in Blizzard's eyes.

That being said, D3 is being developed by a completely different team and if they choose to do away with PK they are perfectly able to, I happen to hope they follow Schaefer's lead and recognize its worth in the Diablo universe but I, like the rest of us, am not in a position to influence the decision in the slightest.

Again I commend you for doing the leg work and bringing that to light, I know personally I would probably have failed to research that thoroughly and it is something that needed to be stated.
-Tai

HouseSpray

07-07-2008, 19:21

1) The only place where Pking is an issue is Hardcore mode, and MOST hardcore players want pking in the game.

2) Removing pks from the game completely RUINS the game for PKKS.

3) Getting pked in a legit manner can not happen unless you let it happen, meaning there is plenty of time to get away. There are only a few places where it can happen that you have no way of getting away... the edges of towns and the sewers.

4) If someone is being a bother everyone should be able to hostile that person and force them out of a game or kill them or whatever.

5) If there is a pk/non-pk option for games, this option must be chosen at character creation. People that choose to play in PVE games should not be able to level in pve mode and then come pvp with me. Nor should people paying in pk mode have to have pve games cluttering their list of games. It is not fair and makes it harder for PKKS to do their job.

etslayer

07-07-2008, 19:33

Max Schaefer knows what he is talking about. It was his genius that made D2 so successful. He realized that the only way to maintain a truley competitive atmosphere and make PvP just as big a part of the game as PvM is to implement non-consentual hostility. The new developers think they are doing good by listening to the "majority", but the typical consumer has no idea what makes a game good. PvP will change immensely in D3, for the worse. Only after it is implemented will people realize that they were wrong. The new D3 team has also borrowed other elements from games that have seen immense popularity such as WoW, presumably because it has worked and the majority of potential consumers. Also, some members of the lead dev team for D3 admitted that they were never huge fans of D2. They played it, but from their tone I think it's safe to assume that they never got in really deep, and therefore they never learned what made the game great for those who take it to the limit. I'm sure D3 will be a great game, but it will surely lack some of the magic of D2.

IntellectSucks

07-07-2008, 19:47

I love the idea of keeping PKers (those who have hostiled and killed another player without mutual hostility, I consider people who duel as something else) being tagged with a bandit or criminal status. It would open up a whole new avenue of gameplay. Imagine PKers only being able to enter town during night and then only be able to interact with certain NPC's. They could get decreased MF and EXP against monsters and not be able to mule items between themselves and their "normal" characters. It would still offer all the fun of PK but create an incentive to play co-op. Maybe you could even put in an option to convert your character to a "police force" character who got huge EXP or item bonuses for each PKer he killed, as well as preferred treatment from NPCs (lower prices etc).

I think this would be an easily coded and really really fun addition that would help satisfy everyone.

Uncle_Mike

07-07-2008, 19:57

I think this would be an easily coded and really really fun addition that would help satisfy everyone.

no it wouldn't since some PvM oriented players despise the idea of PK :girly:

If you are (as in numerous posters above) convinced that PK is the very essence of hardcore why are you concerned with the issue? Most hardcore players should agree and allow PK in their games. Even if games are to be flagged as pvp ones that allow PK there should be enough of these unless you are wrong about people enjoying being PKed and the thrill that comes with it from the prey's perspective.

I don't think you should be penalised for being a PK player as well.

There are dedicated PvM players out there who just don't want to participate in any PvP. Why should they be denied the right to play HC?

Tai.

07-07-2008, 20:27

Uncle Mike, nobody is arguing that people who only want to play PvM should be denied the right to play Hardcore. They are welcome to play HC but must do so within the guidelines the game designers set forth. Right now in D2 that means that PK is a part of the game, in D3 it may well not be. Either way PvM players are welcome to come play HC, but if they choose to not allow all aspects of the game to exist in their world by playing private games they take the risk of losing out on run speed, experience and the community factor.

Also, the argument that if people really like PK as a part of the game they'll create PvP able games is specious. If you can select on your join screen (similar to the way Starcraft has it) to either see PvM or PvP games it logically follows that the only people choosing to see PK games will be PKs or PKKs. You wouldn't look for a low money game on Starcraft by selecting the Use Map Settings option, because the number of available games that fit your need will be miniscule if any.

Hypothetical situation here (I can't really think outside of examples, sorry).

You want to quest through act 3 (humor me and assume there's an act 3 in D3) do you A.) select to see the list of PK games - or - B.) select to see the list of PvM only games? Personally I think most people (if not all) would rather select the PvM game. This is not because most people want the game to not have PK as an aspect of it, but rather because that game fits their needs better.

I dont think it's unreasonable to assume that while the game is still fresh most leveling games will fill up fairly easily. Why would you voluntarily put yourself in a position to play in a PK game out of principle at the expense of 7 people's experience boost? I know, I know - if the PK aspect of the game is so wanted why won't your game fill up too? Simple, because the ratio of PvM to PK players in PvM games will be 100% and the ratio of PvM to PKers in PK games will be much lower than that. Thus, logically anyone looking to find a game to play with the community will choose the option that basically guarantees them a full game and guarantees that that game will be full of PvMers.

If everyone on Battle.net makes this logical deduction and decides to go where the rewards are greater for the same effort and lesser risk we'll end up with a list of PK games that are simply duel games. The only people who would voluntarily join PK games would be either those looking to solo who had an ideological belief in the merits of the PK system or PK/PKK themselves.

I can see where you are coming from in regards to the Bandit/Outlaw concept, most PvMers would prefer not to have PK in the game at all and as such it would probably not be popular. It is however thinking outside the box and presenting a system that would allow PKing, keep the general spirit of the game intact and make it even easier for people to avoid PKers (legit of course) and I think as such we should perhaps attempt to work with it a bit before dismissing it outright. If we fall into the trap of writing everything off because the majority of PvMers dislike PK we might as well just abandon the concept of PK as a part of the game ourselves. I personally don't wish to do so, if only on the one in a million chance that someone at Blizzard will monitor player responses to the game theory and take them into account.

That said, I'll be buying Diablo 3 no matter how much they may bastardize it. I would simply prefer if it retained the Diablo feel to it.

HouseSpray

07-07-2008, 20:40

If there are PVE-only and PVP game types in Diablo3, this choice MUST be made on character creation. Having a checkbox when making a game for pvp or pve-only is BAD.

It is not fair to the pvp-only player to have a pver level up in pve and then duel him later in a pvp game. Nor is it fair to force a pk/pvper to see pve-only games when choosing a game.

You should have to pick if you are PVE-only or PK/pvp when you create your character and live with the choice you made.

Whenever someone says something about the checkbox everyone should stress this point.

Also it is not their game, which is why they can not kick players and is also why the game does not close when they leave, if another player is in the game.

Uncle_Mike

07-07-2008, 20:42

Refer to me as Mike please :girly:

It is my impression that the PK threads are dominated by pro PK people who are in fact a minority. I'm arguing you guys for that very reason. I'd rather remain impartial, since all of this is pure speculation, but I'm doing it for the sake of balance and I hope we're not opening a can of worms here.

I've barely played HC and I must admit that I'm not really familiar with the issue, but given how irritating PK can be in softcore at times (even though it's safe in terms of items etc.) I think PvM people can/should both voice and have their opinion supported even in the PvP forum.

My main concern would be that allowing non-consensual PK would mostly affect the PvM crowd. While I'm sure there are "legit honorable PKers" they are most likely a minority, same as "genuine GM duelers" in pubs in softcore. They do exist, but we're mostly debating idiots/nerds who want to ruin other people's experience and legit PKers being victims of it along with PvE players.

edit: I think that if they force you to chose if you're PvP or PvE upon character creation there will be more PvP characters. Many more people would consider your arguments if they didn't absolutely detest PvP/PK and didn't want to give up on it completely.

etslayer

07-07-2008, 20:54

There are dedicated PvM players out there who just don't want to participate in any PvP. Why should they be denied the right to play HC?

This is like saying that there are dedicated item collectors who don't find it fun to play through the game, but just want to be able to boss hunt from day 1. Why should they be denied the right to play how they want? In D2, the rules of online HC require that you are competing against all monsters and players. That is why unconsentual hostiles are allowed. If people want to avoid having to run into potential human opponents, there are mechanisms provided to aid them in this. These include: a timed wp and tp delay after hostility is made, the ability to only be able to hit the hostile button when in town, private games, single player, the esc button on your keyboard, and level restrictions. So nobody is denying PvM players' rights to play HC, but they are denying them the right to impose their playing style on players who adore the current PvP system and everything it brings to the HC experience.

I think of it like this: PvP is a huge aspect of diablo. In HC mode, every single aspect of the game is taken to the hardest possible degree. Therefor to abandon the maximum PvP challenge is to not actually be hardcore.

Tai.

07-07-2008, 20:57

True enough Mike. I tend to feel as if people are attacking legit PKers directly with these supposed changes, though to be honest many of them would force the legit PKers to shift their aim but maybe not in a negative way. Most of the PKers I know on Hardcore took it up because they could never find a duel. When they could find them, the games were filled with BM players and those using TPPK and Chicken Hack, hardly a welcoming environment.

If we could somehow get to the point of a legit good-mannered and well moderated PvP scene I don't think many of the PKers (at least not the ones I know) would object hotly. If we take that as a logical point to start discussion from we can bring the discussion to being one that primarily affects PvM players.

If it were simply PvM players making the decisions I feel relatively certain that PK games would fall by the wayside, which I would personally be perturbed by (it wouldn't feel like Diablo for me if I wasn't always on edge) but which on the whole would leave the duelers relatively happy and the PvMers relatively happy. Even I, as a staunch fan of PK threat, would almost certainly transition to a PvM only game without any problems.

This is of course taking for granted to aforementioned GM dueling scene so the PvPers actually have somewhere to go besides hunting in PvM games and taking for granted that Blizzard will be able to create a challenging and hack-free game to maintain our interest in the PvM world.

Uncle_Mike

07-07-2008, 21:04

So nobody is denying PvM players' rights to play HC, but they are denying them the right to impose their playing style on players who adore the current PvP system and everything it brings to the HC experience.

So hardcore PK players are OK imposing their rules on those who want to PvE but it doesn't work the other way around?

Both the current PvM and PvP systems might be gone when D3 is released. Let's just hope that they can find the right balance so that both communities are at least relatively satisfied.

etslayer

07-07-2008, 21:27

So hardcore PK players are OK imposing their rules on those who want to PvE but it doesn't work the other way around?

No, it is not PKers (a term which I think should never be used, because the term "PK" itself can have many different meanings.)imposing the rule. Battle.net was never designed purely for PvM in the first place, therefor if PvM oriented players want this change to be made, they are the ones imposing. The rule was made by Blizzard despite the outcry against PK. This is because they wanted to make PvP an intrinsic part of online D2 gameplay. What the new D3 team is doing is listening to the majority, something that the D2 team realized is not always the best solution when it comes to video game design. The creators of D2 saw PvP as intrinsic aspect of the game... something that simply cannot be separated from the overall game. This strategy has proved to be incredibly affective. The only way to get rid of every form of PK is to separate PvP from PvM. Therefore PvP would no longer be an intrinsic element of the game.

5zigen

07-07-2008, 22:15

No, it is not PKers (a term which I think should never be used, because the term "PK" itself can have many different meanings.)imposing the rule. Battle.net was never designed purely for PvM in the first place, therefor if PvM oriented players want this change to be made, they are the ones imposing.

OK i just wanted to say first your are wrong. PK's has a very distinct meaning, particularly in HC. A PK is anyone who hostiles / kills people without their consent. There are different types of PK's but PK still has a distinct meaning.

Aside from that, you keep confusing who is imposing their beliefs. If I'm playing PvE and I have no interest in PvP and you come in as a PK you are forcing me to do something as another player. Therefore, you are forcing your play style on me.

Second, your argument that "Bnet was made this way and it should stay this way" is nothing more than an appeal to tradition. Just because it was that way in the past doesnt mean it should stay that way.

I just thought I would add as an addendum. I am not inherently opposed to PvPing or PKing. However, I don't think it's right in D2 at least because particularly at low level you can always simply kill people weaker than you. And even if you're the same level, the difference in power is amazing.

Say you have a level 18 character. A character that only has gotten 90 stat points total normally, However a lvl 18 PK will have an extra 15 stat points, an extra 60 health points, and an extra 12 skills. On top of that, they will have gear designed for killing people, and on top of that they will have an inventory full of charms. All things that are either not possible or not practical for a person who is leveling in the pve game.

What that results as is a situation where the PKer has shifted 100% of the risk onto the prey. If there was some risk for the PK I think it would be fairly justifyable, because a PK wouldnt mean a stop in the game for a logical player, a PK would mean a challenge.

As it stands, for a PvE character a PK generally means instant death with 0% chance to kill the PK and that is just unacceptable to me.

HouseSpray

07-07-2008, 22:21

I would say that if there are 2 game types to choose from at character creation... 1) pve (this even includes mutual agree dueling) and 2) pk (just how it was in diablo2)...

Softcore would mostly be PVE/dueling... because there is no real point in pking in softcore... and I seriously wonder about people that pk in softcore for any length of time.

Hardcore would be almost 100% pk... hardcore pve would be a ghost town.

I do not think i have ever met a person that plays mostly or all hardcore mode that did not want pks in the game. Random hostiles are just fun... pkk was fun...

This is just an issue of the different play styles of Hardcore and Softcore.

EDIT: Softcore would END UP being mostly pve/dueling... however I would say that there are a higher % of diablo players total that like pking and the hostile system. The reason Softcore would end up more pve/dueling is because softcore will have a higher % of pvers and the people that like pk/hostile system would not bother breaking themselves off from all of the pvers if it has a dueling system... because a dueling system would likely be good enough for them...

Neferim

07-07-2008, 23:02

Hmm, a lot's happened since I last posted. Let's see if I can cover everything I want to.

let me start with this
In HC mode, every single aspect of the game is taken to the hardest possible degree. Therefor to abandon the maximum PvP challenge is to not actually be hardcore.

This is just not true. I believe that you play your hardcore characters a certain way, but there is no reason to think that that is part of being hardcore. The one and only thing that changes when you check the hardcore box is that when you die, you do not respawn. That's it. It doesn't "take every single aspect of the game to the hardest possible degree". It just makes you not respawn. If I check hardcore will every unique monster have a devastating combo of attributes? Way more Multishot Lightning Enchanted than normally? More mobs of monsters that are harder than other potential spawns? Will my act 3 be as sprawling and maze-like as possible?

The answer to all those questions is "maybe, but it's no more likely than if you were softcore". So please, don't tell me that hardcore implicitly means you wouldn't mind getting PKed, because the box could be labeled "No Respawn" and it would do and mean exactly the same thing.

-=[]=-

It seems like not many people who are posting in this discussion followed the link I posted to an old but well detailed argument against PK, so I'll just repeat a lot of it here. The fundamental problem people have with understanding why I and many others dislike PK so much is that they think "If the PK doesn't kill anyone, the PvM players have 'won' and his impact is trivial and meaningless." This is wrong. If I am playing a PvM game with people and a PKer joins and hostiles everyone in the game, he has ALREADY WON.

Now my options are:
1) continue play as normal and get killed by the PKer
2) run back to town and hope he leaves
3) join a different game

In any of these situations, my gameplay has been disrupted in a way that I never wanted to have happen to me. The PK may not have killed anyone, but he ruined our game, which was his goal. That is why I say that he has already won, so don't tell me that PKing is trivial because it's so easy to avoid death.

So what it basically boils down to is that the PK's dollar is worth more to the company than my own. We both bought Diablo 2 to play the game we wanted to play. I wanted to play the game advertised on the back of the box, and he wanted to play a game involving killing people who played the game on the back of the box. Apparently, his game is more important than mine. I understand people are saying "PvP is a critical and intrinsic part of playing on Battle.net", but I would disagree with that as well. The box for Diablo 2 didn't say anything about having every B.net game requiring PvP, or really anything about PvP at all. PKing was certainly not one of the main selling points of the game. Maybe a lot of people bought the game for PvP, but it was not touted as a reason why one should buy the game by Blizzard North.

So when I install this game with supposedly co-op multiplayer with a wide audience of people to meet and play with only to have my party get destroyed by some random person who wanted to ruin our day, what am I supposed to think? It's no coincidence that I stopped playing on B.net less than a month after I bought D2.

etslayer

07-07-2008, 23:06

Aside from that, you keep confusing who is imposing their beliefs. If I'm playing PvE and I have no interest in PvP and you come in as a PK you are forcing me to do something as another player. Therefore, you are forcing your play style on me.

Okay you are going all the way back to the start of the whol argument. I don't believe that D2 HC unfairly imposes PvP on anybody. Hardcore is about taking both PvM and PvP to the limit. This means you are competing with all monsters AND players. when you make a HC character you agree to submit to these rules. If you are only interested in the PvM aspect, it is your responsibility to seek out ways to avoid PvP interaction. There are plenty of ways that PvM players can avoid PKers, and HC should not be specifically tailored to those who do not want the full HC experience. I firmly believe that you cannot separate PvP from PvM in HC, because it wouldn't be a true HC experience. Having a lame consent-only PvP system completely eliminates the player challenge that is an integral part of HC.

HouseSpray

07-07-2008, 23:58

Originally Posted by Max Schaefer, Senior Designer of Blizzard North
Diablo II and the expansion are the games that we at Blizzard want to play. That is our formula for success. Companies that design games based on focus groups, marketing opinions, and even fan input do not succeed. Although hearing the opinions of others are valuable to us, every design decision must pass the test of whether or not WE would want it in the game. In many cases, we've changed our minds after hearing compelling arguments. But we've decided that PKing is part of the Diablo universe. We are well aware that this does not please everyone. However, you are right: we are not apologetic about it. Not at all. Sure, we could implement a PK switch. It's a trivial coding task. But we wouldn't be being true to ourselves, and our goals as gamemakers.

Pretty much every that likes pking in the game should post this everywhere.

Tai.

08-07-2008, 00:11

Amen, I've seen you post that in multiple threads and every time it elicits a smile from me

kirborg

08-07-2008, 00:34

well that is a beautifull quote and all, but it hardly gives any insight in the issue people are having with Pk-ing. How exactly does Pk-ing fit in the Diablo universe? Is slaughtering of low level players who can't retaliate part of the lore? are the accompanied swearing and death threats part of the Diablo feel blizzard would like so much to express in their games? Or is it just the competitive hostility among players that pleases Mr Schaefer?

etslayer

08-07-2008, 00:51

well obviously Schaefer and co. didn't see PKing as being limited to the sorry act of hunting down low levels when they are trying to level. Besides, that aspect of PK wouldnt even be such an issue if people just had the sense to use level restrictions.

Tai.

08-07-2008, 00:56

Wow, way to whine and imply that you know more about what Diablo 2 should be than the mastermind behind it.

Diablo 2 was designed to have PK as a part of the game, to have other players as an additional hazard. Claiming that it was because Schaefer is a griefer is laughable and I'm sorry to say a bit pathetic. Who knows if it was the realism or the additional challenge that led the Diablo 2 developers to decide what they did, but I can guarantee you it was not because he wanted to see people suffer.

Personally I would tend to think that it was the realism of having to watch your back against the other random adventurers you encounter on your journey, but who knows.

Q33

08-07-2008, 01:07

Also, the argument that if people really like PK as a part of the game they'll create PvP able games is specious. If you can select on your join screen (similar to the way Starcraft has it) to either see PvM or PvP games it logically follows that the only people choosing to see PK games will be PKs or PKKs. You wouldn't look for a low money game on Starcraft by selecting the Use Map Settings option, because the number of available games that fit your need will be miniscule if any.

Hypothetical situation here (I can't really think outside of examples, sorry).

You want to quest through act 3 (humor me and assume there's an act 3 in D3) do you A.) select to see the list of PK games - or - B.) select to see the list of PvM only games? Personally I think most people (if not all) would rather select the PvM game. This is not because most people want the game to not have PK as an aspect of it, but rather because that game fits their needs better.

I dont think it's unreasonable to assume that while the game is still fresh most leveling games will fill up fairly easily. Why would you voluntarily put yourself in a position to play in a PK game out of principle at the expense of 7 people's experience boost? I know, I know - if the PK aspect of the game is so wanted why won't your game fill up too? Simple, because the ratio of PvM to PK players in PvM games will be 100% and the ratio of PvM to PKers in PK games will be much lower than that. Thus, logically anyone looking to find a game to play with the community will choose the option that basically guarantees them a full game and guarantees that that game will be full of PvMers.

If everyone on Battle.net makes this logical deduction and decides to go where the rewards are greater for the same effort and lesser risk we'll end up with a list of PK games that are simply duel games. The only people who would voluntarily join PK games would be either those looking to solo who had an ideological belief in the merits of the PK system or PK/PKK themselves.

Any interest in addressing my previous post to you, where I address all of this Tai?

Basically, my response to this is the PKing community touts that PKing is fun, from both the PK perspective and as the victim because it increases excitement, etc. etc. Now, if they specifically choose to make/join a PvE game, then apparently the added "fun" of PKing isnt worth the potential maximum rewards of the PvE only game (I say potential because this assumes that people won't make PK enabled PvE games...which doesnt add up if people on here really like PKing for the reasons they stated). So if it isnt important enough to them to support their preferred way of playing, then why is it even in the game? If I honestly believed that PKing is part of the spirit of Diablo and it is a defining feature of the game, I sure as heck would make a PKing game even if there are less potential maximum rewards. Why? Because I would want to play the game that "I" most enjoy. You're given a choice, play a diluted version of what the masses want, or play the game that has the supposed spirit of the previous games.

What it really boils down to is given a choice, each community should support itself, and no one else should be responsible for it.

Think about this for a second. There are 2 types of characters, softcore and hardcore. Im guessing that at the peak of diablo (not talking about now, but the first few years when it came out and when the xpac came out), that a majority of the players were on softcore. Why in the world would people choose to play hardcore, if a majority of people are on softcore? On softcore, its easier to get games going, it easier to trade, easier to get better items, etc. In essence, those playing on hardcore willingly limit themselves in terms of maximum rewards....and why? BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT. Simply as that. By your logic, because there are less people on hardcore, and its harder, people would simply go to softcore and this would perpetuate itself rendering hardcore non-existent. But that simply isnt the case because the community within hardcore is willing to support itself.

Edit: Or alternatively, instead of PvE and PK GAMES, they could create separate servers as someone else mentioned (upon character creation, you have to choose pk or nonpk). That way EVERYONE on the PKing servers are under the same limitations of less people. Just like in Hardcore.

Edit2: You know what I think would be REALLY cool? If they did force you onto separate servers based on hardcore/softcore and Pk/nonPK. Furthermore, I hope that in theoretical PK servers, its like in Diablo 1 where hostiles are unannounced. That would be the ULTIMATE challenge...hardcore with unannounced hostiles. I would never play it, and I doubt many people would, but those who say that softcore and consensual hostile makes for a diluted Diablo game, that'd be their cup of tea.

Originally Posted by Max Schaefer, Senior Designer of Blizzard North
Diablo II and the expansion are the games that we at Blizzard want to play. That is our formula for success. Companies that design games based on focus groups, marketing opinions, and even fan input do not succeed. Although hearing the opinions of others are valuable to us, every design decision must pass the test of whether or not WE would want it in the game. In many cases, we've changed our minds after hearing compelling arguments. But we've decided that PKing is part of the Diablo universe. We are well aware that this does not please everyone. However, you are right: we are not apologetic about it. Not at all. Sure, we could implement a PK switch. It's a trivial coding task. But we wouldn't be being true to ourselves, and our goals as gamemakers.

Very interesting indeed. That settles whether or not it was intentional or not. But my response is there is a difference between intentions and execution. You can have the best intention and have it go horribly wrong. Just because it was an intended feature, doesnt mean that it was executed well. And hence why they might change it in subsequent games. They may realize that PKing causes more grief than enjoyment (not saying that it does, but hypothetically they might find this out), and take it out when they make Diablo 3. Think about it, Hellgate London was full of good intentions, and yet it was not that successful. Simply because something was intentional doesn't make it good.

Ammareddo_Fritter

08-07-2008, 01:18

I actually liked PKers joining my game. I can say I never joined a game with my high characters & randomly killed people, but I thought it was kinda fun when people did it to me. It was dangerous in a way the rest of the never was, because you can't trick a PKer the way you trick monsters, and they usually never stop coming for you. Plus you rarely can damage them. Most of the time we would TP to town & they would leave.

kirborg

08-07-2008, 01:44

Abrojo

08-07-2008, 04:13

But I'm not talking about the annoying level ones. What I am saying is that with consentual-only dueling, it wouldn't be only level ones doing this but everybody could do it. I just hate the idea of someone running around a dueling game knowing they can be as annoying as they want without the risk of getting killed by the other players.

In a PVP enabled game (aka a dueling game) you can do whatever you want.

OK you are assuming that PKing is automatically a negative aspect of the game, .

For the people that dont like it, it is indeed negative :)
And all that they are asking is to be allowed to create games where they can play comfy ("pvp enabled checkbox"). You are asking that everyone is forced to your mindset of what is fun instead of giving choice.

In HC I really don't see why you can't just leave a game if you don't want to get PK'd.

why should i leave the game i made just because a griefer decided to join? what is his right to disrupt my gaming when i didnt want to that?

Anyway, saying that you want an aspect of the game removed because it ruins YOUR fun is not a valid argument. In fact it's incredibly selfish. Removing PK would ruin MY fun,.

Yes, see here is the actual distinction.
Lets say they give an option to players to create a game with "pk disabled".
True PK'ers should still have fun because they can make or join pk enabled games. However that is not what you want, you dont want people being able to opt out and thats the problem. As a reminder, just like freedom, your rights end when they step on someone else's.
You said players can opt out, well adding an option to disable pvp in their game is asking to opt out and you dont want that. You cant say you are against a PvP filter and then say that the current filters protect players, proof is that the current filters didnt stop PK.

Who is right? It's not a matter of whose fun is ruined, but the legitimacy of the act of PK. I simply adore the fact that HC is the hardest possible level, and taking out PK makes it much easier because I WANT it to be a true hardcore experience.

Cool, if it is an option then you and the people that share your beliefs can play with each other without bothering the rest.

chubz

08-07-2008, 05:03

HouseSpray

08-07-2008, 05:20

If you're idea of "fun" is making others miserable and wasting what may be alot of time that they spent on the game then YOU are the selfish one, and if making others miserable makes you happy your problems run alot deeper than a simple video game. Instead of playing said game you should try to work on that because although you may shrug it off as "oh it's just a game" the same thing can also relate to real life and if that's how you get your kicks I pity you. The game should be fun for EVERYONE, not just a few people who can't seem to have fun playing a game without wasting other peoples hard work and time. As it is now you can't even play in a public game in HC without some loser using a third party program to try and kill someone while they are having THEIR fun. To sum it up if you whine about PK being eliminated in Diablo 3 then don't play the game, just one less loser playing the game and that's definately a good thing.

Oh and for the whole "just leave the game if you don't wanna get pk'd argument you're trying to pull, almost noone tries to legitimately PK someone, it's all done with tppk programs and they don't even have time to leave the game before there dead, and you're sitting there laughing like a jackass at someone elses expense, well, we don't need people like you playing the game.

If you remove pks from the game you will ruin MY GAME... I usually always end up being a PKK. How the hell can I PKK if there are no PKS?!?!

As far as PK being eliminated in Diablo 3... again...

Originally Posted by Max Schaefer, Senior Designer of Blizzard North
Diablo II and the expansion are the games that we at Blizzard want to play. That is our formula for success. Companies that design games based on focus groups, marketing opinions, and even fan input do not succeed. Although hearing the opinions of others are valuable to us, every design decision must pass the test of whether or not WE would want it in the game. In many cases, we've changed our minds after hearing compelling arguments. But we've decided that PKing is part of the Diablo universe. We are well aware that this does not please everyone. However, you are right: we are not apologetic about it. Not at all. Sure, we could implement a PK switch. It's a trivial coding task. But we wouldn't be being true to ourselves, and our goals as gamemakers.

LOL... how many times does this need to be posted? I guess they wanna ruin everyones game too and have no idea what they are doing lol.

ALSO tppk is not legit pking... we are only talking about legit pking... everyone should have no problem with maybe a hostile delay to stop tppk forever. I hate that kinda crap and drop hack.

If there is a PVP or PVE game option for diablo3 its MUST be chosen at character creation... NOT when you make a game.

It is not fair for pvpers to have their game list littered with PVE games. It is also not fair to let a pvers level in pve games then come to my pvp games to duel. You should have to pick your mode and be stuck with it at character creation.

Seriously though pking is so easy to avoid... I played Hardcore for years and was only pked once when drophack first came out. If they get rid of tppk and add like maybe a 2 or 3 second delay for leaving the game when you are hostile to someone to stop chicken... that would be nice.