Brainstorming

[sicilian]

Ok, I'll preface this by saying I'm not a PK advocate. There's something about it I don't like, but as I've read the responses of others I've come to realize it doesn't affect me at all. I play mostly password games with friends, and there certainly ways to grief people in a public game without killing them.

Still, I think some sort of counter balance against PK is necessary. Doesn't have to eliminate it, or even restrict it, but there may be ways to mitigate the damage. Here are a couple of rough ideas:

1) Have PK stats, and allow games to be filtered based on them. For example, have a field in the game creation (like the level restriction) that says "PK Limit - 100". Now, PKs would only be times when you killed someone that you went hostile on. If you're defending yourself, it doesn't count towards this total

2) If someone hostiles you, and you win, you get the option of booting the player from the game for good. That account would then be banned from that particular game. That way, if you want to pick on someone and get beat, you get the shame of banishment.

3) No concrete idea here, but perhaps a shell of one. If you hostile someone, they don't become vulnerable to attack until they agree to the fight... however, they are afflicted by some other kind of negative (an experience decrease, they can't purchase anything, something like that). It encourages people to fight you, but doesn't force them to.

I like the first two ideas better, but the third one popped into my head. Any thoughts on any of these?

[cbr]

1) Have PK stats, and allow games to be filtered based on them. For example, have a field in the game creation (like the level restriction) that says "PK Limit - 100". Now, PKs would only be times when you killed someone that you went hostile on. If you're defending yourself, it doesn't count towards this total


And what does that number represent? Besides if you can set some sort of filter why wouldn't you just set it to 0 so that it wouldn't accept any PK chars.

2) If someone hostiles you, and you win, you get the option of booting the player from the game for good. That account would then be banned from that particular game. That way, if you want to pick on someone and get beat, you get the shame of banishment.

If you can beat them once you can beat them again, they will leave by themselves when they geted NKed on softcore. Your suggestion would also be abusable on HC since if you make this game as a duel game you wouldn't be able to loot. On HC this isn't a probably anyway since if you kill the PKer once, problem solved.

3) No concrete idea here, but perhaps a shell of one. If you hostile someone, they don't become vulnerable to attack until they agree to the fight... however, they are afflicted by some other kind of negative (an experience decrease, they can't purchase anything, something like that). It encourages people to fight you, but doesn't force them to.

That's just plain bad, it would completely kill PK.

[sicilian]

And what does that number represent? Besides if you can set some sort of filter why wouldn't you just set it to 0 so that it wouldn't accept any PK chars.

The number would represent how many players this account has killed. And yes, some people would choose 0, that's their choice. Other people might be ok with PK, so long as they don't have to worry about the hardcore hunters, hence they can set their own limit.

If you can beat them once you can beat them again, they will leave by themselves when they geted NKed on softcore. Your suggestion would also be abusable on HC since if you make this game as a duel game you wouldn't be able to loot. On HC this isn't a probably anyway since if you kill the PKer once, problem solved..

So, disable it on HC. You wouldn't need it then anyway, given they can't rejoin with that character. As for beating someone again, that's not true. Maybe you got lucky... maybe you don't WANT to have to keep fighting them. You're trying to level, or quest, etc, and you fight off this guy. Now you don't have to worry about him.

That's just plain bad, it would completely kill PK.

Again, it was a fleeting idea. I don't think it would kill PK as you say, if done the right way, I just couldn't think of the specifics. Perhaps someone else can though.

[cbr]

The number would represent how many players this account has killed. And yes, some people would choose 0, that's their choice. Other people might be ok with PK, so long as they don't have to worry about the hardcore hunters, hence they can set their own limit.


If people can set it so that no pk could join than it's bad since it kill PK. If people can do something they will and game will be set to 0. No!

So, disable it on HC. You wouldn't need it then anyway, given they can't rejoin with that character. As for beating someone again, that's not true. Maybe you got lucky... maybe you don't WANT to have to keep fighting them. You're trying to level, or quest, etc, and you fight off this guy. Now you don't have to worry about him.


Well than you have the choice of Nking him until he leaves which is fun, letting him get his body and the fight restarts or you leave the game. Why would anyone just stay to get NKed is a mystery to me.

Again, it was a fleeting idea. I don't think it would kill PK as you say, if done the right way, I just couldn't think of the specifics. Perhaps someone else can though.

If people agree to a hostile it's no longer PK it's a duel, so in that sense it's already killed PK as a concept.

[sicilian]

If people can set it so that no pk could join than it's bad since it kill PK. If people can do something they will and game will be set to 0. No!

Unfortunately, it seems as though Blizzard is going to eliminate the particular system you want, so I'm trying to suggest ways it can be salvaged to some degree. I don't believe that everyone will set it to 0, and if that is the case then there aren't enough people who want PK to make it worth adding to the game.

Well than you have the choice of Nking him until he leaves which is fun, letting him get his body and the fight restarts or you leave the game. Why would anyone just stay to get NKed is a mystery to me.

My suggestion was to give the survivor the OPTION of booting. If you want to keep letting the guy try, that's your choice. If you want to beat him, boot him, and get on with your game, you have that choice as well.

If people agree to a hostile it's no longer PK it's a duel, so in that sense it's already killed PK as a concept.

Fair enough. Ignore my third suggestion, I can't think of a good enough negative anyway.

[cbr]

Unfortunately, it seems as though Blizzard is going to eliminate the particular system you want, so I'm trying to suggest ways it can be salvaged to some degree. I don't believe that everyone will set it to 0, and if that is the case then there aren't enough people who want PK to make it worth adding to the game.


Of course people don't want to be PKed, what a silly thing to say. Who on HC do you think wants to die? People like the feel of the blood pumping when they hear the hostility sound, but if they can avoid getting PKed they will. The only games that wouldn't be set to 0 would be the duel games, or it will ultimately lead to that. This is the same thing as having a checkbox when making the game if you allow hostility or not. Same idea, different implementation.

My suggestion was to give the survivor the OPTION of booting. If you want to keep letting the guy try, that's your choice. If you want to beat him, boot him, and get on with your game, you have that choice as well.


Yes, but it isn't your place to say if he should stay or not. Also what if the PKer wins and he starts booting you, wouldn't that be even more annoying? No more getting your corpse.

[sicilian]

Yes, but it isn't your place to say if he should stay or not. Also what if the PKer wins and he starts booting you, wouldn't that be even more annoying? No more getting your corpse.

I'm pretty sure I made this clear, but I'll clarify anyway... if you're HOSTILED and you win, you get to boot. If you are the aggressor and you win, you don't. Better now?

And it's his place to say, because he was minding his own business, got attacked, and won. Now he deserves the right to go back to minding his own business without having to continually fight off the same person.

[cbr]

I'm pretty sure I made this clear, but I'll clarify anyway... if you're HOSTILED and you win, you get to boot. If you are the aggressor and you win, you don't. Better now?

And it's his place to say, because he was minding his own business, got attacked, and won. Now he deserves the right to go back to minding his own business without having to continually fight off the same person.

Yes he was minding his own stuff and got hostiled and won... so what? How does that give him the right to boot anyone from the game. You don't like the game YOU LEAVE it, not somebody else.

[Uncle_Mike]

Yes he was minding his own stuff and got hostiled and won... so what? How does that give him the right to boot anyone from the game.

Sound pretty much like the right of the PKer to enter and ruin PvE games which us what many people would like to see gone in D3 ;)

Why do you fight so much over this? It's one of those arguments when it's known right from the start that pro-PK people will remain pro-PK and the anti-PK camp will stick to their initial thoughs/conclusions as well ;)

It's similar to softcore pvp vs. hardcore pvp/pk arguments, we've had them for years, nothing has ever been achieved in those.

[phool]

The number would represent how many players this account has killed. And yes, some people would choose 0, that's their choice. Other people might be ok with PK, so long as they don't have to worry about the hardcore hunters, hence they can set their own limit.


You aren't differentiating between PK and pvp, and banning people with no intention of pking in any form from half of pvm games just because they once successfully defended themselves against a pker.


2) If someone hostiles you, and you win, you get the option of booting the player from the game for good. That account would then be banned from that particular game. That way, if you want to pick on someone and get beat, you get the shame of banishment.

Failed pks don't stick around to be laughed at. Getting killed trying to pk pubs is very embarrassing. This would only affect actual pvp where people have multiple pvp chars and want to switch between them for matchup variety.

3) No concrete idea here, but perhaps a shell of one. If you hostile someone, they don't become vulnerable to attack until they agree to the fight... however, they are afflicted by some other kind of negative (an experience decrease, they can't purchase anything, something like that). It encourages people to fight you, but doesn't force them to.

Allowing apparent pkers to grief other players while solo farming in an unrelated area. Now pkers don't even have to attack other players to inconvenience them?

[sicilian]

You aren't differentiating between PK and pvp, and banning people with no intention of pking in any form from half of pvm games just because they once successfully defended themselves against a pker.

The PK and pvp thing is valid, but I specifically said it doesn't count if you defend yourself from a hostile. This would be specifically a count of how many times you've been the aggressor.

Failed pks don't stick around to be laughed at. Getting killed trying to pk pubs is very embarrassing. This would only affect actual pvp where people have multiple pvp chars and want to switch between them for matchup variety.

And again, what I said was the winner would have the OPTION. If it's a pvp match, I doubt they're going to boot the loser if they want to fight them again. But what if a failed PKer DID stick around? Now it's just annoying. Of course, if you think you can beat him again, you have the freedom to let him stay and keep trying. If you think you got lucky and don't want to lose your progress because you couldn't beat a jerk twice in a row, you have the option to claim victory and boot the aggressor. I don't see how this has a negative, to be honest.

Allowing apparent pkers to grief other players while solo farming in an unrelated area. Now pkers don't even have to attack other players to inconvenience them?

Like I said, ignore this one. It was a throw in idea at the end to give me three. I've accepted that it doesn't work.