14 reasons why PK should stay in D3

[etslayer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Oh and about the private game argument... you say that people shouldn't have to be obligated to make private games just to avoid PKers? Well I am saying that the reason there are passwords and level restrictions is because Blizzard wanted to give people the option of making their own rules for their own games. How can you say that just because you don't want to utilize these options, other people should change their playing styles? Before you answer this, keep in mind that PKing is not inherently "bad". You can't use the assumption that it is a bad thing when arguing my points. You have to explain WHY it is bad, which is something that you have not done.

[Nimbostratus]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Mythor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The only argument that is valid for pking is: The uncertainty that someone will come in and try to kill you is a positive effect on the game. but that's only been in undertones of posts, and it might not be true.

In hardcore pking can get it's own argument and while a lot of people aren't pk's they still like the service that pking provides (thins the economy, thins out the riff raff).

That being said a lot of people in hardcore don't like it because the only way to have a 'good' game in hc is to play in a passworded game with people you know. This can be good, but the thing is it's a terrible way to meet new people. The anti social behavior that is Pking is far far more detrimental in D2 hc than in sc. There's almost never actual games in hc just because no one want's to take the risk of getting tppk'd.


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?

[Funkopotamus]

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]

Are you guys law students or something?

Philosophy :thumbup:

[5zigen]

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]

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]

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]

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.

To add on:

1. Give players some incentive for remaining in a PK-er activated game, say an exp boost for killing regular monsters

2. Let normal monsters deal 10x as much damage to the person who initated hostile, so lvl 15s can now exercise some creativity :p

[Moonstalker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Agreed. It would be truly sad if Diablo will become a franchise that is particularly attractive to grievers.

[etslayer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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