A checkbox for PvP games

General Discussion
Prev 1 2 3 10 Next
There was so-called world PvP in Diablo 2, and yet the vast majority of PvP happened in an environment far more boring than any arena.<br /><br />Further, Jay Wilson has already brought up the fact that he would like to support all these styles of play, and gave ideas for how it might happen. He just warned that it probably will not make it for release. So yes, it's speculative, but very likely.<br /><br />And you are still using this straw man claim that arenas are all the same. There may be many varied arena maps. IIRC, someone has data mined several different arena maps out of the D3 beta client. I also find your complaints about pillars strange too. Would you rather have the boring flat areas that D2 offered? A couple obstacles in a PvP map are a good thing.
<br /><br />Those are good points. I can settle with there being no world pvp in Diablo 3, I just can't handle the lack of social interaction elements which appear in the game thus far. A world pvp option would enhance this interaction of the community.

How is players griefing each other a social interaction? How is arena pvp not a social interaction?
<span class="truncated" /><br />How is players griefing each other a social interaction? How is arena pvp not a social interaction?
<br /><br />Griefing as social interaction: Players 'griefing' other players (would by definition not exist in an opt-in system) provides a bad guy for other people to band together against, if not in actuality then at least in spirit. A real person serves as a far better focal point for good guy(s) vs bad guy(s) than any boss, providing stronger feelings of animosity and adversity as well as greater satisfaction in the event of triumph over such adversity.<br /><br /><br />Arena as anti-social: Two players queue up and fight against two other players they have never met before and may never see again. No great animosity. No particular sense of overcoming adversity. Game ends, both teams are exited and those two players probably never meet those other two players again. Action in D3 is fast paced, so in a competative arena, even if there is the ability to chat with the other team, there simply isn't time for it.

This is so biased lol. First of all, your assuming that players actually band together against griefers, which they don't. Most griefers in d2 did when the other players have no chance of fighting back, or when players are by themselves. Griefers don't aim towards being the bad guy, they do it when they have a high probability of winning.

Arenas are not 2v2, where did you get this idea. Even if there isn't time to chat with the other team, you have plenty of chance of getting to know your own team. You're also assuming you can't make casual arena games that would simulate dueling conditions in d2, and the devs said they're aiming towards being able to do that.
And there it is again. Mith shows it perfectly. Griefers will twist themselves in knots to justify their behavior. To the point of claiming that they are actually doing their victims a favor, by making the game somehow more interesting or compelling. This kind of logic never fails to amaze me.

Many of us disagree with this assertion that players make better focal points of animosity, for one. And even if we didn't, that's not social interaction. That is inherently anti social, because it turns players against each other, and makes people less likely to cooperate and interact with each other, for fear of them turning out to be a griefer.

Your insistence that players are inherently more difficult and interesting than monsters is not really universally true. As I've pointed out before, monsters can have all sorts of abilities that players cannot, and be much more intimidating in that respect. They are a bit more predictable, yes, but that does not mean that they can't demand a lot of skill to beat. Requiring very good play and tactics with a small margin of error is entirely possible. I find difficult single player games to be just as compelling, if not more so, than PvP games oftentimes.
11/18/2011 12:23 PMPosted by MortQ
Why can't you search the forums for the dozens of threads that have already discussed this exact idea?

I'd still like to see this question answered.

This thread doesn't even make the most thinly veiled attempt to put a new spin on the topic. Thus, we are going to see all the same responses that we've seen before, and by the same people, to boot.
11/18/2011 02:42 PMPosted by Mith
How does a straightforward answer to a simple question constitute "twisting [myself, a griefer] into knots to justify [my] behavior"?<br /><br />Your blatant bias and generalizations are all the worse for your attempt to seem civil and intelligent, and even more amazing than any logic employed by PvP proponents that seems to baffle you.<br /><br />Please point out where I justified griefing<br />Please point out where I claimed that griefing is doing others a favor. <br />(Hint: As I specifically opened with a statement that I was referring to an opt-in, as mentioned by the OP in his body and in his thread title, you won't find either.)<br /><br />Please point out where in this thread, on this topic, I brought up any discussion that pertains to differences in difficulty, interest, or skill requirements between fighting players and fighting AI.<br /><br />Please explain how the concept of a common goal (survival) or common enemy (PK) causing people to band together is not a social interaction.<br /><br />I may just as well say that you show it perfectly. Carebear crybabies will do anything to twist the words of PvPers to justify denying them being able to have their own separate fun.

Mith, you had a huge paragraph about why griefing is a good thing, in an attempt to justify it. And that argument rather exactly parallels a common argument that many griefers use to justify their actions, with a claim that their presence makes the game more interesting for their victims.

You mentioned that griefing could not exist in an opt in system, which I absolutely agree with, but your statement read like you were attempting to justify actual griefing of players, like what happened in the old D2 hostility system without an opt in. If that's not the case, I apologize for misinterpreting your words.

Further, you ask where you you asserted some kind of skill or difficulty gap between PvP ands PvE? Your entire argument about players being a better focal point for animosity seems to be predicated on exactly that. I've also seen you make that argument in other threads, so I had connected the dots.

You should know by now that my beef is not with an opt in system. If we are speaking of an opt in system, there can be no griefing, because of the opt in. But you should know that a D2 style system is not promoting social interaction. The D2 system was anti social in that it forced many players to stop interacting with the community in order to play the game without being harassed by griefers.

I never intentionally try to twist anyone's words, Mith. If I misinterpreted you, you can point it out, but if you're going to get so hostile over it, then, likewise, perhaps it's not really worth trying to have a real discussion with you.
11/18/2011 02:47 PMPosted by CallMeSire
Why do the pvp haters insist that their way of enjoying the game must be enforced on better players? What is wrong with good players being able to pvp while other players play in pve? Why not let everyone be happy?

So the players who want world PvP are the 'better' players, huh? Nice generalization.

Hate to break it to you, but many people who dislike world PvP would smoke you in a duel. There is no correlation between skill and world PvP. Just the opposite, really. World PvP is easier than duels or arena PvP.

I'm all for an opt in, but this elitist attitude exhibited by many world PvP proponents is just garbage.
While I agree with Mith's first post, I dont think D3 provides the opportunity to over come adversity with only 4 people allowed per game. I generally agree that you do feel more into a me v them when faced in world pvp. But there isnt a large enough world of players for it to really develop properly. Even 8 players in my mind isnt enough.

It really comes to the Diablo "world" isnt the typical world in other online RPGs (such as MMOs). In MMOs you cant leave the realm instantly, there is a huge cost to do that (time and money). In diablo 3, you can switch instantly. This makes world pvp too easily gotten out of for it to mean anything. And as Mith said, if it doesnt mean anything, then it really doesnt have any difference to any other form of pvp.
Related to the OP -- My suggestion thus far of Diablo 3 is based upon speculation on the lack of in world PVE excitement, from a PVP perspective.

I WANT to feel a heightened sense of excitement when someone joins my public game. I want to get my adrenaline pumping. I WANT to engage in the human side of 'will this be a new found friend, or enemy?'. I WANT to feel like I am unsure of trusting this new person yet, because I don't know what will happen. Will they hostile me, or will they fight demons with me?

Without this, it just seems that I will not care. For sure playing with people will add to my game experience; however I never have to leave my safety bubble. The worst I can do is get into a nasty chat-fest with the people I do not get along with, rather than put my mace into their face and make them pay for those 'lolololerz u suxz'.

To me, this can be solved with 'PVP & PVE games', where in creating a new public/private game, I HAVE THE CHOICE to create a game (SEPERATE FROM THE ARENA SYSTEM) where player to player combat is or is not mutually accepted. In the PVP games I should be able to hostile 'on the fly'. In the PVE games I should be able to play in sunshine and rainbows.

To sum up with a simile, it is like always having to wear your seatbelt when you drive, rather than having a choice to live dangerously. Laws & constraints are a safe bet, but they are boring.

For me... Nothing beats T-bagging some willy-nilly hostile PKer who thinks she/he can come into MY game and wreck MY day. I love turning the tables - that to me, is exciting. I'll mindlessly grind zombies, with a savage beast waiting for some poor sucker to come in for a good fight, thinking I am just their next ear to collect... Take a dirt nap baby!

Everything else in Diablo 3 plays and looks great…

I have to agree that world pvp in diablo would not be good. Maybe a way to duel people instead?

World pvp targets MMO's more where there are thousands of players in a game. It works in WoW and probably games like lineage eternal.
dense pvpers won't be happy .. omg they will cry ..gi9ve us world pvp.. omg they will cry ..please balance pvp ..

D3 will be a co-op pve game built around a system that makes you feel as over powered as possible.. if you do not want to enter pve game and help people clear content to farm .. and you do not want to pvp in arena.. please look at the many other esport pvp games out there that are made for you ..

You will not be happy no matter what pvp content they add to the game
World PvP is clearly not superior nor as popular as a battleground/arena related pvp. In wow there are plenty of open world pvp areas, entire servers dedicated to them. The best players however are in arenas. While people that can't win an arena or bg, are running around in hellfire ganking low levels.

World PvP = strong players ganking weak players.
Why can't you search the forums for the dozens of threads that have already discussed this exact idea? dur da dur
@face I completely agree. Diablo 2 players can't post in these forums most of these people have no clue what the other diablo series were about. Pvp games are fun on a bun.

The only reason world pvp is not popular in wow is because it offers little no rewards.
Oh look, this thread again. Too bad nothing has changed since the last one, and world PvP still doesn't add anything to the game except community division and griefing. Just be satisfied with arenas and move along already.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum