PVP.

Brawling
Prev 1 5 6 7
11/27/2018 12:18 PMPosted by AbsintheMind
Just wanted to say I support OP. Diablo 2's PvP and replayability associated with it got me into competitive games. I loved making new chars to try diff builds for duels. It's a major reason I didn't much care for DIII. Why remove the duel function?


A game that had nothing to do with competitive play in a genre that’s never had competitive play got you into competitive play? That seems a little odd.
11/28/2018 03:16 AMPosted by Orrion
11/27/2018 12:18 PMPosted by AbsintheMind
Just wanted to say I support OP. Diablo 2's PvP and replayability associated with it got me into competitive games. I loved making new chars to try diff builds for duels. It's a major reason I didn't much care for DIII. Why remove the duel function?


A game that had nothing to do with competitive play in a genre that’s never had competitive play got you into competitive play? That seems a little odd.


https://www.google.ca/search?ei=qnn-W7mBBIqc_Qairb3gCA&q=competitive+games+&oq=competitive+games+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39l2j0l8.20203.20721..21058...0.0..0.84.159.2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i22i30.oU7yJElUl68

Not seeing D2 on google there.
11/27/2018 10:34 PMPosted by RasaQ
11/27/2018 01:45 PMPosted by SirSmokes
...Dude what makes the game balanced. What's the build diversity,why are there specal rules,is the pvp really that fun. Was the game designed with pvp in mind? These things are importain.


1. Build diversity: Every class had at least 2 viable pvp builds, some even more.


Define “viable.”

2. Special rules: were created for many different reasons. Because of the Rock Paper Scissors nature of the game, melees like zealers and barbs would create their own leagues because rock vs rock can allow for a more competitive environment than rock vs scissors constantly. Certain matchups were just more fun than others. Nec vs Nec and Sorc vs Sorc for example. Certain game mechanics like absorb could be abused, which is what mostly separated good mannered games from bad mannered (gm or bm)


Kinda missing the point. That special rules were needed at all points to a lack of balance and a lack of intent to balance.

3. Is pvp really that fun? Fun is obviously subjective so I can only speak for myself even though the d2 pvp community was LARGE. D2 pvp is probably the most fun I’ve had in a video game. If it’s not the best it’s certainly up there for me personally.


Why is that? Do you just enjoy creating the best possible situation out of crap, or enjoy inherent discrepancies?

All the best PvP I’ve enjoyed over the years has been in, y’know, PvP games. Splatter sprees with ghosts in and wiping out entire teams with swords in Halo. Fragging people in teleports in Quake. Going 61-3 on AWP_MAP in Counterstrike, and knifing the crap of out players in the weapon cycle mods. Team killing the other team by myself in Paladins. Etc.

Was D2 fun? Yeah, sure - but my best PvE experiences come from EverQuest and WoW - nothing like coordinating 50+ people to kill a gigantic 5 headed dragon, or beating the boss of an expansion the night before a nerf patch.

4. Was the game developed with pvp in mind? I think the game was developed to be a great game and both pve and pvp were a part of that. They had a symbiotic relationship.


It’s pretty obvious that the only real thing they did was put in the hostile button and call it a day. They did not design the game with PvP
in mind.
11/27/2018 10:34 PMPosted by RasaQ
...

1. Build diversity: Every class had at least 2 viable pvp builds, some even more.


Define “viable.”

2. Special rules: were created for many different reasons. Because of the Rock Paper Scissors nature of the game, melees like zealers and barbs would create their own leagues because rock vs rock can allow for a more competitive environment than rock vs scissors constantly. Certain matchups were just more fun than others. Nec vs Nec and Sorc vs Sorc for example. Certain game mechanics like absorb could be abused, which is what mostly separated good mannered games from bad mannered (gm or bm)


Kinda missing the point. That special rules were needed at all points to a lack of balance and a lack of intent to balance.

3. Is pvp really that fun? Fun is obviously subjective so I can only speak for myself even though the d2 pvp community was LARGE. D2 pvp is probably the most fun I’ve had in a video game. If it’s not the best it’s certainly up there for me personally.


Why is that? Do you just enjoy creating the best possible situation out of crap, or enjoy inherent discrepancies?

All the best PvP I’ve enjoyed over the years has been in, y’know, PvP games. Splatter sprees with ghosts in and wiping out entire teams with swords in Halo. Fragging people in teleports in Quake. Going 61-3 on AWP_MAP in Counterstrike, and knifing the crap of out players in the weapon cycle mods. Team killing the other team by myself in Paladins. Etc.

Was D2 fun? Yeah, sure - but my best PvE experiences come from EverQuest and WoW - nothing like coordinating 50+ people to kill a gigantic 5 headed dragon, or beating the boss of an expansion the night before a nerf patch.

4. Was the game developed with pvp in mind? I think the game was developed to be a great game and both pve and pvp were a part of that. They had a symbiotic relationship.


It’s pretty obvious that the only real thing they did was put in the hostile button and call it a day. They did not design the game with PvP
in mind.
I didn't feel like stating the obvious. It pretty clear to anyone that not blind or wearing rose colored glasses.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

D2 is very fun so yes, i do think it will be fun. If you actually played d2 please answer my questions as it is only fair since I answered yours. Not sure there is a clear answer to number 1, but if you can’t answer 2, 3, and 4 then I can only assume you never played d2 for any meaningful period of time. [ul][/ul]

1. How was d2 imbalanced?
2. What was strong in d2? (classes/builds)
3. What was weak in d2? (classes/builds)
4. And lastly what was desynch in d2?
I play D2 plenty I just turned 38 the other day 27 of November. But that game came out almost 18 year ago and I have moved on to other things. Still not wrong about PvP in D2 being tacked on and not a really balanced fun experience


Not sure how you can be “right” on something as objective as fun. We’re you part of the blizzard north development team and have the personal knowledge that pvp was a “tacked on” design choice? You’re taking opinions and conjecture and presenting them as facts.

I know it’s been well over a decade since d2 was in its heyday, but I guarantee any d2 PvPer in this thread can answer those simple questions I put forth.

Edit: I’m sailing to the Bahamas and don’t have time to get to the rest, but I will come back and answer the rest when I return. (If I remember to)
11/27/2018 02:32 PMPosted by Midnight
PvP is broken promise by Blizzard.


This! Blizzcon 2010 PVP arenas were shown off.
11/28/2018 03:30 AMPosted by Orrion
It’s pretty obvious that the only real thing they did was put in the hostile button and call it a day. They did not design the game with PvP
in mind.


Wrong. In D1 there were weapons that damaged armor durability, mobs didn't wear armor that could be damaged. Ears dropped from players in D1/D2, why bother including that if the devs didn't care about PvP/PKing? The assassin class was basically a PvP class...added to the D2 expac no less. If PvP was not a consideration why didn't they simply add a "duel" feature in D1 and D2? Why were so many D2 skills not practical for PvE but great for PvP? Your anti PK bias is showing pretty hard here, I bet you consider WoW a PvE game too. EQ was a PvE game where zero consideration was put into PvP balance (they only had like 3 PvP servers if I remember right). Of course the priest of discord tells us even the EQ devs gave a little thought to PvP in their game...

With D3 it was clear: no PvP of any kind at launch. You have a good case there! D3 clearly was not designed with PvP in mind.
11/28/2018 06:59 AMPosted by Ziegfried
11/28/2018 03:30 AMPosted by Orrion
It’s pretty obvious that the only real thing they did was put in the hostile button and call it a day. They did not design the game with PvP
in mind.


Wrong. In D1 there were weapons that damaged armor durability, mobs didn't wear armor that could be damaged. Ears dropped from players in D1/D2, why bother including that if the devs didn't care about PvP/PKing? The assassin class was basically a PvP class...added to the D2 expac no less. If PvP was not a consideration why didn't they simply add a "duel" feature in D1 and D2? Why were so many D2 skills not practical for PvE but great for PvP? Your anti PK bias is showing pretty hard here, I bet you consider WoW a PvE game too. EQ was a PvE game where zero consideration was put into PvP balance (they only had like 3 PvP servers if I remember right). Of course the priest of discord tells us even the EQ devs gave a little thought to PvP in their game...

With D3 it was clear: no PvP of any kind at launch. You have a good case there! D3 clearly was not designed with PvP in mind.
Dude it pretty clear too anyone when D2 was be made the amount of thought put in to PvP was add a hostile button. PvP in D1 was better because it was a simpler game with out the skill trees and less stuff to be unbalanced.
11/28/2018 06:59 AMPosted by Ziegfried
11/28/2018 03:30 AMPosted by Orrion
It’s pretty obvious that the only real thing they did was put in the hostile button and call it a day. They did not design the game with PvP
in mind.


Wrong. In D1 there were weapons that damaged armor durability, mobs didn't wear armor that could be damaged.


Talking about D2, so that’s not really relevant. Also, I believe mobs had an armor class in D1. I can’t check my player’s guide at the moment though.

Ears dropped from players in D1/D2, why bother including that if the devs didn't care about PvP/PKing?


Because it’s probably not that tough to make an item drop on a player kill?

The assassin class was basically a PvP class...added to the D2 expac no less. If PvP was not a consideration why didn't they simply add a "duel" feature in D1 and D2? Why were so many D2 skills not practical for PvE but great for PvP?


Because some skills just suck? I mean, it’s not like D3 doesn’t have those. Channeled skills, for example, would always be terrible in PvP because PvP is about movement. And skills like Meteor Shower or the Wave of Light Fire Rune with a large area would be great because you’d likely always land hits.

In other words, just regular skill variety will give you skills that are good for one mode or the other. Nobody necessary had to look at them and consciously tag them that way. CC abilities are also usually powerful in PvP. Does D3 have those? Yes.

Your anti PK bias is showing pretty hard here, I bet you consider WoW a PvE game too. EQ was a PvE game where zero consideration was put into PvP balance (they only had like 3 PvP servers if I remember right). Of course the priest of discord tells us even the EQ devs gave a little thought to PvP in their game...


WoW is exactly what I don’t want to see happen in Diablo. WoW constantly juggled the 2 modes and PvP changes constantly affect PvE and vice versa. For example, the best PvE weapons in Burning Crusade were rank 2200 PvP weapons. Not good.

EQ had more PvP servers than that, but in general you’re right. They didn’t balance PvP at all. It was so bad the Enchanter was rendered useless in PvP because players could cap Magic Resistance, and Enchanters only had Magic-element spells.
11/28/2018 06:59 AMPosted by Ziegfried
...

Wrong. In D1 there were weapons that damaged armor durability, mobs didn't wear armor that could be damaged.


Talking about D2, so that’s not really relevant. Also, I believe mobs had an armor class in D1. I can’t check my player’s guide at the moment though.

Ears dropped from players in D1/D2, why bother including that if the devs didn't care about PvP/PKing?


Because it’s probably not that tough to make an item drop on a player kill?

The assassin class was basically a PvP class...added to the D2 expac no less. If PvP was not a consideration why didn't they simply add a "duel" feature in D1 and D2? Why were so many D2 skills not practical for PvE but great for PvP?


Because some skills just suck? I mean, it’s not like D3 doesn’t have those. Channeled skills, for example, would always be terrible in PvP because PvP is about movement. And skills like Meteor Shower or the Wave of Light Fire Rune with a large area would be great because you’d likely always land hits.

In other words, just regular skill variety will give you skills that are good for one mode or the other. Nobody necessary had to look at them and consciously tag them that way. CC abilities are also usually powerful in PvP. Does D3 have those? Yes.

Your anti PK bias is showing pretty hard here, I bet you consider WoW a PvE game too. EQ was a PvE game where zero consideration was put into PvP balance (they only had like 3 PvP servers if I remember right). Of course the priest of discord tells us even the EQ devs gave a little thought to PvP in their game...


WoW is exactly what I don’t want to see happen in Diablo. WoW constantly juggled the 2 modes and PvP changes constantly affect PvE and vice versa. For example, the best PvE weapons in Burning Crusade were rank 2200 PvP weapons. Not good.

EQ had more PvP servers than that, but in general you’re right. They didn’t balance PvP at all. It was so bad the Enchanter was rendered useless in PvP because players could cap Magic Resistance, and Enchanters only had Magic-element spells.
Honestly I don't think gamer get how hard it is to do good PvP. Problem with PvP is the P part the player.Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.
https://www.designer-notes.com/?p=369
I gave clear examples that D1 and D2 were designed with PvP in mind. It's pretty tough to argue against the facts I laid out. But I can lay out a few more if you are not convinced. I mean really...at this point you are pulling at straws saying the D2 abilities were just poorly designed in general if they weren't PvE viable. Your talk about how WoW was ruined is an excellent illustration of my own point that your anti PvP bias won't allow you to see the devs actually did put time and effort into the PvP elements of the game.

Saying stuff is "unbalanced" is ridiculous. It's an RPG not an FPS of course things are not balanced, just like a lvl 10 fighting a lvl 30 is not balanced. There are several RTS and FPS games for example command and conquer series and starwars battlefront that are completely lacking in balance, same goes for arcade fighting games. If perfect balance was the criteria for a game to be PvP focused the vast majority of videogames would be disqualified.
11/28/2018 05:15 PMPosted by Ziegfried
I gave clear examples that D1 and D2 were designed with PvP in mind. It's pretty tough to argue against the facts I laid out. But I can lay out a few more if you are not convinced. I mean really...at this point you are pulling at straws saying the D2 abilities were just poorly designed in general if they weren't PvE viable. Your talk about how WoW was ruined is an excellent illustration of my own point that your anti PvP bias won't allow you to see the devs actually did put time and effort into the PvP elements of the game.

Saying stuff is "unbalanced" is ridiculous. It's an RPG not an FPS of course things are not balanced, just like a lvl 10 fighting a lvl 30 is not balanced. There are several RTS and FPS games for example command and conquer series and starwars battlefront that are completely lacking in balance, same goes for arcade fighting games. If perfect balance was the criteria for a game to be PvP focused the vast majority of videogames would be disqualified.
PvP is not worth jack if it unfun and poorly implemented.
Having something in mind isn't the same as declaring it a game focus, either. Were PvP the D2 focus, I'd expect something like trackers for unique kills per day/week/month/season/lifetime, things to buy with ears, areas better designated for combat than just outside the rogue camp, and different forms of PvP than just kill or be killed where player-made rules would generally fall under that umbrella. And bluntly, some sort of penalty for murdering people way under level. For those of us saying PvP was little more than adding a Hostile button and calling it a day, is pretty much because that's literally what they did.
11/28/2018 05:15 PMPosted by Ziegfried
I gave clear examples that D1 and D2 were designed with PvP in mind. It's pretty tough to argue against the facts I laid out.


Wasn’t tough to argue against them at all, really. Cause I did.

But I can lay out a few more if you are not convinced. I mean really...at this point you are pulling at straws saying the D2 abilities were just poorly designed in general if they weren't PvE viable.


No, I said some skills suck for either one or the other.

Then I said that regular skill variety in games like these will give you both PvE and PvP skills. This is evident because D3 has good PvP skills, but even you acknowledge it wasn’t designed with PvP in mind.

Your talk about how WoW was ruined is an excellent illustration of my own point that your anti PvP bias won't allow you to see the devs actually did put time and effort into the PvP elements of the game.


Yes, they did. And yet it still had tons of problems, didn’t it?

See, proponents of PvP keep spouting that it won’t affect PvE... but there’s really no examples of games where that actually happens, unless the 2 modes are ENTIRELY separated. Which isn’t really something an open world game with limited skills like Diablo can do anyway.

Saying stuff is "unbalanced" is ridiculous. It's an RPG not an FPS of course things are not balanced, just like a lvl 10 fighting a lvl 30 is not balanced. There are several RTS and FPS games for example command and conquer series and starwars battlefront that are completely lacking in balance, same goes for arcade fighting games. If perfect balance was the criteria for a game to be PvP focused the vast majority of videogames would be disqualified.


Given how badly Starwars: Battlefront actually did, I don’t think you’re doing your argument any favors in bringing it up.

What you’re missing is that good PvP IS balanced - or is at least attempting to be balanced. The best PvP games either strive for balance amongst a lot of heroes with different abilities (IE League and team shooters and arena games) or they have everyone start out exactly equal and go from there (Counterstrike, Halo, etc).
11/24/2018 09:01 AMPosted by Imperius
I'm all for PVP, but not like it was in D2... Having people lvl 90 joining games made by lvl 20 players just to kill them endlessly until they make a new game was not making the game better for the community as a whole.

Allow people to accept or decline duels, this way people who are there to play the game wont get their games ruined by someone who's just there to an ahole.


Having played D3 for a time, my experience was that I never even saw another player - it was basically a single player game, which you have to log online for.

I think the scenario you are describing is if you were in a game with other actual players (D2 allows 8 players, vs the 4 max in D3) and a fellow low lvl player in your game became disgruntled because someone stole an item drop that he wanted, so he logged out and logged back in with a lvl 90 character to join the game to proceed attacking you.

Now, mind you, I am not condoning or opposing the attack behavior of said lvl90 player, however, I am completely in agreement with their ability to attack another player if they so choose.

Let's be honest - having played in the D2 ladder earlier this year I can tell you I never experienced anything like this. What I did experience was the ability to build up your character via farming items, trading, receiving help and giving help to other players, and building up characters to duel other players with.

There are also little known features that let you set certain restrictions on who can join or even see the games you make:

- level restrictions (you can set the max level of players that can join a game).
- restriction on number of players that can join ( you can set it anywhere up to 8)
- you can set a password on the game, so only someone with a the name/password can join.
- you can set the difficulty level of the game (i.e if you are a lvl20 player in Normal mode, a lvl90 player would presumably be in Hell difficulty, and thus unable to even see your game).
11/23/2018 09:38 PMPosted by Sparhawk
No it NEVER was pvp. Pvp was and always will be an added gimmick for Diablo. At it's core it's a PvE game that gives the player massive damage that can't be accounted for in a pvp scenario. They can't even balance the PvE side of things so you're an idiot if you think they would in put any effort into pvp balance.

Learn to open your mind to the idea that not every game must have pvp to suit your personal desires. If you want pvp then play one of the many games made for it. Battle royal or various FPS, racers, fighters, mobas and others. This is not and never will be a game for pvp, it's a concept you will deal with because there never will real pvp in this game.


Note: I have nothing against youngsters even though it may seem that way. Pointing out the difference of age which is a huge part when playing these type of games of learning the rope.

Clearly, you haven't played D1. D1 was about pvp and monster hunting. Dueling is when two players face each other off. It was not for some players who want to ignore or avoid pvp. That's the type of game it was. D2 had dueling in it so can't dismiss that. D3 fail to bring pvp in since it was rush out of factory meaning more profit than fixing most if not any bugs that's what companies do when they want quick cash. D3 got the down side of this, which was no pvp which was a broken promise that blizzard made, which is not uncommon when they rush it out. When ROTS came about they had a light version of it and a cryptic way of showing it.

The OP is talking about all 3 games ever made. Op talking about 2 games that had dueling aka PVP. Just because you disagree doesn't mean there was no pvp. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't negate D1 was about pvp and monster hunting that led up to d2 introduction of keeping pvp in the game. It was young folks like kids and young teens who didn't like to get pick off while doing levels in D1. When anytime a youngster enters a Mature game they have to learn the ropes of that game if they don't like it they can leave. Since it was young folks who complained it makes sense because they didn't get the whole concept of gray which was beyond their grasp since "age" does play a part in games like these. Certain things is meant for older folks not younger which D1 was target to older folks and the same can be said to D2. Also, D3+.

The concept of fair for youngsters is "I get to do it not you" which is a conflict of interest problem when the design made it so any player can do it. Complex games and simple games are flooded with youngsters on the forums who don't get it. Complain in voice chat which is heard and see typing in the chat rooms. This can make it harder for them to remember what happened in the game during that time. This is a common thing now days and it shouldn't because it brings toxic anger problems.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum