Poll: would you play diablo 3 if...

[aldos]

They took out the hostile system and put in some type of WoW-esque arenas?

[phool]

Probably more of an 'especially' than a 'despite' actually. Taking the pvm out of pvp is something I've hoped for for a long time, though I don't actually want to take the pvp out of pvm.

[Felis]

I'm not a big PvP fan so it's better for me this way.
If I would like to kill someone (or to be killed for that matter) I would go to a ring or an arena. Less distraction from random monsters as phool pointed out.
And in the wild all the monsters are enough pain without some rogue adventurers running around:

"Oh, hey! How are you? Fine day isn't it? Hey, look at my new sword.... HA! Right in the eye! You haven't seen that comming, have you?..."

Thanks but no thanks :)

[Orphan]

I don't mind the nature of hostility, but only if it's not some sort of steamroll by a high level character against a low level one, or a 100% decked out pvp character against another. Running the dangers of the wild and knowing that other players could also kill you would make things abit more interesting for me, as long as it boils down to my skill vs theirs in a battle.

Regardless, I'd still play D3 even if there was no PvP at all.

[SoulSpectrum]

"Oh, hey! How are you? Fine day isn't it? Hey, look at my new sword.... HA! Right in the eye! You haven't seen that comming, have you?..."

Thanks but no thanks :)

lol, Great. I personally don't like pvp in Diablo 2 just because of the gameplay/controls, not to mention the standard typical pvp skills and gear. However, if the mechanics of D3 is set right, I wouldn't mind it at all. It'd add more of a challenge and thrill to playing the game. If they were to allow pvp like that, then it should only be done with a level difference x<5 and outside of that you'd have to accept the challenge. They'd also have to set it so that you can't be in a party once you go "hostile". This would prevent people from grouping up against random players.

Overall, more danger, more excitment, more fun. They'd just have to balance it greatly. This is just my love for unexpected danger.

[imjustsomeguy]

My only real concern about PvP is the effect it might have on class design. I don't want skills to be balanced around PvP, but rather PvM. This is not much of a concern though as I don't expect PvP to get anywhere near the attention PvM will.

I didn't care for the PvP in D2. While dueling characters died too fast and the gameplay was all about spamming full rejuvs. I found it too simple and boring. The random attacks from other players while questing or mfing didn't do anything for me either, aside from a minor annoyance. In a game where the difficulty level goes up for each new player who joins, if everyone isn't working together then I have no incentive to remain in the game. So the first person going hostile signals it's time for me to leave. Nothing fun about this setup imo.

If case it isn't obvious by now, yes I would play D3 whether it had PvP or not. Although I do hope the PvP mode that Blizzard comes up with turns out ok. I do enjoy PvP gameplay, just not what D2 had to offer.

[ThulRasha]

Sorry to say so yet again, but this poll is missing some options.

Just like with WoW, I would not use that part of the game. So for this poll, I would have to vote Yes, even though I'm not plannig to do much PvP.

[Akse]

Isn't blood moor a bit like the arenas? Not too many pvp elsewhere..

[Uncle_Mike]

Isn't blood moor a bit like the arenas? Not too many pvp elsewhere..

I wouldn't know since I've never played WoW :girly:

Whatever the poll options are my answer is: Yes, I will play diablo 3 :whistling:

[ScionOfStorm]

I will play (or at least try playing) diablo III at (almost) all costs - after all, Warcraft and Diablo series are my fav. ones :)

[Swordslash]

Here's a weird idea... how about random AI-players who pop in and come after you? :scratchchin:

[ThulRasha]

Here's a weird idea... how about random AI-players who pop in and come after you? :scratchchin:

Is not PvP. Where P stands for Player.
Your weird idea is simply fun monster AI. Would be nice if something like that is in.

[Baranor]

Yes, I will, and yes, I do not mind arenas and such.

[Dimmu]

The only real gripe I have with the hostility system is the fact that any old level 90+ and hostile anybody of at least lvl 9. I think they should maintain the hostility system but only for characters that are like 10 levels within the person hostiling. After you breach that 10 level barrier, you would have to just mutually agree on hostility, simple as that. Oh and ditch the hostility towards an entire party thing, it's just annoying.

An arena would be great and all, but I wouldn't want that to be the only place to be able to PvP.

[Serenity]

yes and I hope they do that.

[teh_Thrasher]

meh removing the hostility system was kind of thumbs down for me. how am i supposed to let someone know i dont like them in my game if i cant hostile them? lol. theres nothing wrong with the current setup u get hostiled and u have like 5 seconds before they can even use the waypoint then they have to go find u... thats plenty of time to get out of the game. the only real problem is TPPKers which is a hack cause they use a script to do it so fast.

[Gamekk]

This poll is wrong. It shouldn't be "would you play Diablo" but "would you still enjoy". INDEED I'll still play that badass game, but I won't enjoy it as much.

WoW PvP is horrible. All I see in channels are things like LF 3v3 team just for points. Or, WTB 5v5 team X gold. In battlegrounds, nobody know what they're doing and end up complaining and just farming kills like 95% of the time. The most fun I have in WoW PvP is still the world PvP which never gets old, just like Diablo II's style. Yesterday I just ganked a lvl 32 mage and lvl 34 hunter when they were doing a quest, I was 30 and untwinked. This didn't give any reward but everything was there : I felt badass. That's all a player needs. No more endless arena or BG farming infinite replayability capitalistic reasons.

EDIT : I haven't say that WoW world PvP is great, I know that 95% of it consists in a level 70 killing tenth of level 20s.

[sh25]

I like how people can go hostile. I love when ppl are mouthin off to eachother then get to settle it in a duel

[Frostraven]

I don't mind the nature of hostility, but only if it's not some sort of steamroll by a high level character against a low level one, or a 100% decked out pvp character against another. Running the dangers of the wild and knowing that other players could also kill you would make things abit more interesting for me, as long as it boils down to my skill vs theirs in a battle.

Regardless, I'd still play D3 even if there was no PvP at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong... but...
In Diablo ii -- it's not as much "my skill vs theirs", it's "my character PvP skills and my degree of godly PvP equipment versus their character's PvP skills and degree of godly PvP equipment".

1: Skills
2: Equipment
3: Player skill

Tried to kill anyone with PvM charged bolt sorceress versus someone with Thundergods?

Tried to kill a PvP enigma amazon with a pvm hammerdin?

Tried to kill a PvP frozen orb sorceress with a pvm character with less than 300% cold resists?'

Generally -- anyone can make a godly PvP character which can and will rape anyone who just want to play the story part of the game.

Thus the diablo ii pvp/pk cooks down to:
Those that want to play the game for the story and for owning monsters and rushing others and gather gear for PvM has to dance to PvP players' pipes.

IF they go away from the madness that is stacked resistances and reduced pvp damage (balance monster and player damage and HP to match eachother) -- I can accept random pvp.
But as long as there's pvp and pvm skills and pvp equipment and pvm equipment... and thus also pvp and pvm characters...

I would play diablo iii especially much if they went away from the idiotic pvp in diablo ii.
If I was a force of good -- like Tyrael -- I would have slain any hero who ever killed any other hero. Repeatedly.
Character who kill other characters without reason are evil.
Always.
Undeniably.
Evil.

With the Diablo ii story in mind... it breaks with the plot to have evil heroes.
With the number of evil heroes in the realms, I'm sure it would be better to have the forces of evil invade, because in the regular game of diablo ii, there's perhaps 10000 demons, while there's 100000 evil characters capable of killing 1000 demons without rest.
Which means that if the demons we see are 0,1% of the total amount of demons in the hells, we are much better off with the demons invading than with all pk characters living.

PvP should happen for a story reason, and not because "some player characters are evil but fighting on the side of light" -- Reason is the key word here.

They kill other characters for no reason, for what reason?
Fun?
What do the unvoluntary killed characters gain?
The exact opposite of fun, frustration and boredom, plus added frustration if their corpse is hard to retrieve, plus added frustration if it's hell difficulty and they lose exp, plus added frustration if they lose gold they need, plus added frustration if their character never died before, plus added frustration if the pk character waits by the corpse, plus added frustration if the pk character waits by the corpse and any of the above apply.

Most PK-ers ARE ultra-twinked pvp focused characters.
Needless to say, it's NEVER fun for untwinked pvp characters to fight most pk characters.

But... I support the idea of having PvP enabled on game creation, even if it doesn't make any sense what so ever without two factions, just to satisfy those that like the action part of action-rpg.

Heck -- have mutual agreement pvp in all game modes.
But that's not what this is all about, is it.
People want to flip out and kill people for no reason, just like most people today will keep the 100$ bill they see drop out of an old woman's pocket.