See, the issue is not that we don't want you to have fun PvPing. Hell, I will most definitely participate in Arena once it is released. The issue is that we don't want to be FORCED to PvP when we want to just PvM. Diablo 3 has a completely different system for handling games (no game lists, just public and private).
What is the difference between open-PvP and the Arena system? Well, you cannot just go hostile and attack someone...which is actually a good thing. You cannot go duel someone in the middle of a progression run, making the two other people quit...oh wait..that's also a good thing. You cannot make up your own rules for PvP matches...ok...I give you that one.
Guess what?! I got a suggestion for a solution, private Arena matches...you make your own PvP game, invite players, make up your own rules and fight it out. Simple, fits in the current design, and offers the flexibility most want with open-PvP. Gives you the opportunity to battle with others that want to battle like you, and lets us that don't...not. These private Arena's could allow for spectators to let people stream and commentate battles, without Blizzard giving the impression that they are pushing eSports. By doing that, it lets them off the hook and lets people turn the game into an eSport on their own if they like (without completely balanced classes of course).
See, I'm not against PvP. What I am against is people trying to shoehorn Diablo 2 into a new game (Diablo 3). Blizzard chose to make the focus of Diablo 3 be PvM. They learned from the issues they had with allowing PvP to drive PvM design from WoW...essentially PvP ruined a lot of the PvM experience because having the awesome abilities or chance on hits meant they were too good or too bad for PvP. It is good that they've taken the direction they have as it lets them make the game feel a lot more epic, making abilities smash through enemies as you work your way through the story. They didn't neglect PvP in this new design, but they did decide to make it a more casual experience.
Blizzard doesn't expect you to buy Diablo 3 for PvP, they expect you to buy it to play through the story and grind for gear. That's what Diablo has always been about and its still the case here. If you like the new PvP system they offer, awesome...I'm sure I will. If you don't, enjoy the story and be done...it'll still be worth your money. If you don't think it's worth your money because it doesn't have epic PvP...then don't buy it. Whatever option you choose, don't try to shoehorn a very old tacked on PvP system into a game that already has its own PvP system.
The one thing I've been saying and I just don't agree with you on is the fact of how little griefing happened in games that were 100% dedicated to PvM, like Baal, PvM named games. So on that we will never agree, I've done them thousands and thousands of times so I know damn well what goes on. Again, I agree hostility would NEVER work in its current state that D3 is in and that is no game names. Bring those back and I feel it would be a lot smoother. I hate arenas, always have and always will bottled up pvp isn't real pvp to me. we need wide open spaces. I would suggest making games with a check mark options, allow hostility or don't. BUT FOR GODS SAKE BRING BACK GAME NAMES, I dunno who the hell thought it was a great idea to get rid of that but he should be fired, plane and simple the single worst change they did even more then hostility. Make it so that you can simply say in the game title PvM or PvP come join the fun! and its as simple as that, you could even have battles over events and rares in games where the maker allowed hostility while it wouldn't be AS fun, with the current way that I just now found out that every one gets their own gear it would work out I think. This is a win win for every one, we get world pvp while not as spontaneous sometimes its about all that's left with how they changed things.
It's too bad they changed the way loot works that was a great part of it was winning that loot being the fast clicker! but we gotta work with what we have so I feel if they would just simply bring back titles and descriptions of games it could work, simply click hostility on or off.
EDIT: again :D! This thread made me realize something...and that's the fact that them removing game names pisses me off far more then the removal of hostility....Maybe I wanna trade xxxx item for yyyyy item? Maybe I want a few pairs of Imps for my Wizzies, or 08 valk or maybe I'd like 3/20/20's and I have other items I'd like to trade for them? From what I can see on beta there is no option to do such a thing. Someone please correct me on this if I'm mistaken because that blows my mind why they would do that.
Problem: Hostility griefing occurs if players are allowed to declare hostility in games.
Solution: Remove player ability to declare hostility. Channel all PVP into arenas. PVP and PVM is possible now. No hostility griefing. Problem solved. Objective met.
Bad Solution: Rely on players to behave and not declare hostility in PVM titled names. Probability of griefing = x, where x > 0. Solution does not meet objectives.
Problem: Some players desire for world pvp to be implemented. However this cannot come at the expense of allowing player griefing.
Solution: No feasible solution has been proposed that will have probability of hostility griefing at 0. Until a feasible solution is proposed, world pvp cannot be implemented.
The problem with these threads is, that most of us would like to just go "aw fuck it, let's just ignore the guy asking for world pvp, we made our point."
...
But history shows that when you actually do this, the whiny people take this to mean the whole world agrees with their point of view, and are therefore right.
^It goes both ways. If it were the other way around and blizzard had us trolling each other in game you'd be one of those "whiny people" you mentioned. In fact the only reason you can try to look down on people who have a different opinion than you, is because the system you want is already in place. Even though the op's post appears trollish at first glance (running around killing people who want to kill monsters), he does mention having the option to make/join games with hostility, which many people have been trying to ignore. Personally I don't think it's the best solution to make most people happy, but I think it's still a fathomable solution.
For the sake of both parties, I think pvp should be isolated away from PvM, and if that is the case (as it is), it's no longer too farfetched of an idea to ask for more isolated pvp options/modes.
I get the argument about resources, as to why we can't have more content/emphasis on pvp. However a year down the line that should not be as big a deal, and I expect to see more detail put in for the part of blizzard's fanbase that want pvp any way they can get it.
Hostility as an option for created games is possible, especially if there is sufficient warning and other preventive systems to protect players from joining the game accidentally. However the limiting factor here is resources. The same resources that limit the monk not to have weapon animations and the removal of custom death scenes. Probably the same reasons why WOW recycles a post corruption deathwing for the well of eternity instance. The UI and automated matchmaking system would need to be developed and tested and I suspect you'd see a crazy 2+ hour waiting time for those who want to join a hostile world game of comparable gear/level.
I know that not many people would enter into hostile games. I'm going out on a limb here and will guess that most players will, for the most part play with their friends (and solo). A smaller but still significant portion of players will want to meet people and play on public. An even smaller but still existing portion like random world pvp and hostility.
That's why it's not the best solution. If half of all players loved random world pvp, then it'd be no problem. But while many people apparently love/like/can deal with controlled pvp, they don't appreciate being messed with, which is understandable.
The better solution is to just make the non-arena, arena, more like starcraft 2 than wow's. Allow people to, whenever they want, dick around with their own set of rules with specific players (IE friends, or a team for a community tournament etc), duel to the death w/ respawns 1v1, ffa for 8, etc.
More options, more features, and they would only add to the game. The only argument against it is resources, especially since we're some 43 days away from launch. However if people can come to a mutual agreement and get more and more people on the same page, the sooner we could as a community come to a decision as to what features we want to see in the game, and start making more constructive posts and garner more attention for the devs.
I trust blizzard to make a great game, but they still take popular opinion of the community to heart, to an extent. For those of you who have been playing sc2 you've seen them make a good many changes in the past half year or so proving this.
You know what.. I'm going to go back to the question I've asked a few times in the various hostility threads...What does hostility bring to the table that PvP Arena's do not, besides the ability to grief other players? Give me a good reason that they should devote resources to add a system to Diablo 3 that the majority of players dislike.
People tend to compare the D2 hostility function to the WoW PvP Server experience, but that's just false. The problem with hostility in D2 was, that the PKs could not be punished for their actions. Some examples:
1) I'm playing my PvM Armymancer with PvM oriented gear, then a PK joins the game. There is nothing I can't do against a mediocre equipped PK with that char. Now I got two options, try to kill him and probably fail or I log into another character, that is properly specced and equipped. But guess, what happens? The PK leaves as I leave the game or he leaves, when he sees, that he has to fight an equal or stronger enemy.
2) I play a new char, no friends are online and I made an open game 'act 2 no rush'. A PK joins the game and kills me and the players I'm playing with. Again I have two options: Leaving the game or stay in the game and die one hundred times till the PK has no interest in killing me further. If I try to log into my PvP char, he leaves most of the time.
The conclusion is, that PKing or better Griefing has no consequences to the PK himself, cause he can evade every form of punishment by the playerbase by leaving the game. He must not be afraid, that his character becomes famous for being a PK and being hunted down, cause he can just leave the game or play in a private game.
Now back to the comparison to open world pvp in WoW. The main difference is, that you cannot escape the consequences. If you grief people, you will be known for doing so and the whole server is gonna know that. When you gank a twink, he can call for help and all the PK can do then, is to teleport to his hometown and hide in it. But if he wants to play, he will have to leave the town and will be a target of revenge. In that environment you have to care about your reputation, since you're part of a server's community.
That's very true, it's hard to kill people without your power (equipment/corpse), and you could leave a game instantly, safely even if threatening people tried to back up their friends and go hostile. It was rpg pvp in its infancy, wow did it much better than d2. If you die so much as one time, even if it's 1vs4, you're pretty much skrewed so long as the others don't completely fail at corpse camping. There were other drawbacks such as spamming skills on waypoints or at the rogue encampment bridge as well. Not to say wow world pvp was perfect, it was just much better.
Hostility is a piece of junk for even semi-serious pvp, though it's a system that would work for some players, like me, it's not something I think should be implemented into the game given the surrounding situation.
"Rules of Engagement" - Any player to declare hostility against other players has a temporary debuff applied. Perhaps it starts as a -25% reduction to all stats @ 10 minutes sort of thing. For each minute that passes 2.5% of that debuff is retracted until the buff diminishes entirely... so:
Hostility can still only be declared from town and you can only hostile someone within X (5+/-) levels of your character... as always, hostiling someone puts you against anyone in their party as well.
That seems like a fun idea to mess around with....
This still allows griefing, which will create a the same situation that Diablo 2 had where people just stopped making public games, essentially causing the split between PvM and PvP Diablo players that we see today. Not having hostility and focusing PvP on Arenas has actually had a good amount of us PvM players interesting in PvP for Diablo 3. It'll be something we can choose to do, we won't be forced to.
The second issue this solution doesn't deal with is that the PvM game is tuned for having all players participate in progressing. If two leave mid-game to go duel, it essentially griefs the other two players by not allowing them to continue progressing. This again would create a situation where the PvP players is stepping on the desires of the PvM players.
I'm proposed an alternative solution that allows for these kind of duels, but keeps them part of Arena...private PvP Arena games. Essentially you'd create a private PvP game, choose the Arena type and invite players yourself. This would let you have unbalanced teams, spectators, etc. To go along with this idea, I support a FFA Arena type. Combined, a private FFA Arena match would essentially let the players make up the rules completely. Private PvP matches would not count towards your public matchmaking and as such could be used to practice as well. Seems like a good way to get the dueling and control that many PvP players want, without stepping on the PvM players.
I don't see how it fully allows griefing - it's hard to grief anyone in your level range when you've effectively been gimped for several minutes at least. It could actually result in a would-be griefer getting his faced stuffed by his intended victim(s). The percentage could always be adjusted to start at a greater value and retract at a different rate...
In any case the idea is: Someone could come in, declare hostility, and effectively not hunt you down in seconds... they'd have to wait. This gives anyone not interested in a fight several minutes to finish up what they're doing (or get to a checkpoint) and then vacate the game.
You're definetely right when you say that it doesn't address how to handle PvM when 2 (or greater) of the individuals in a 4 person game aren't assisting everyone else. That's another issue altogether - I was just throwing an idea out there on a way to bring back the "world pvp" that some people clearly desire. Not everyone wants a structured pvp system.
I already said it doesn't much matter to me either way. I'll be playing both PvM and PvP - I can't say that I'll miss the old hostility system, but I can't say that I think a complete lack of in-game PvP was a great move either...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Liquid Cooled Intel I7 2700k OC'd to 5.0ghz at a max pull of 1.44v ~ 19-21C Idle ~ 68C max under load.
16GB G Skill Ram ~ 2x Mushkin 120GB SSD's ~ MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozer ~ Asus P8P67 Deluxe
The fact that the griefer or non consensual PVPer is gimped or reduced in effectiveness is not relevant. The problem is non consensual PVP. Players being forced to engage in PVP when they want no part of it. Any solution that involves the possibility that a player might get involved in non consensual PVP is not going to fly.
You want an open world pvp system? Only if it doesn't cause non consensual PVP. The most feasible suggestion so far involves separating open pvp games and non open pvp games but this is both limited by resources and the small player base which will make matchmaking waits very long.
In any case the idea is: Someone could come in, declare hostility, and effectively not hunt you down in seconds... they'd have to wait. This gives anyone not interested in a fight several minutes to finish up what they're doing (or get to a checkpoint) and then vacate the game.
lol you're funny.
In all seriousness...do I really have to say anything?
Ha yea that was a pretty odd idea. Only way hostility gets brought back is by adding in a function when joining a game. Which apparently would make them redo all of their match making, which I am fine with.
In any case the idea is: Someone could come in, declare hostility, and effectively not hunt you down in seconds... they'd have to wait. This gives anyone not interested in a fight several minutes to finish up what they're doing (or get to a checkpoint) and then vacate the game.
lol you're funny.
In all seriousness...do I really have to say anything?
It's totally better to complain, mock, and ridicule a concept than to offer up any sort of solution. I don't know what I was thinking...
As it stands now, it feels like if you come across an individual in-game that you would like to "put in their place" you'll have to effectively request to meet them by the flagpole at 3:00 (ask them to join an arena vs you). That totally works because we all know that fighting and conflict are never spontaneous in nature and rarely do these sort of things happen without first the agreement to meet in battle on fair terms.
The fact that the griefer or non consensual PVPer is gimped or reduced in effectiveness is not relevant. The problem is non consensual PVP. Players being forced to engage in PVP when they want no part of it. Any solution that involves the possibility that a player might get involved in non consensual PVP is not going to fly.
You want an open world pvp system? Only if it doesn't cause non consensual PVP. The most feasible suggestion so far involves separating open pvp games and non open pvp games but this is both limited by resources and the small player base which will make matchmaking waits very long.
This is what I'd call good feedback. It brings up valid points. Anyone who bothered to read the entire thread or even just from my first post would know I was never trying to impliment my proposed system in the first place so much as introduce another concept...
It's very true that "Rules of Engagement" would do nothing to address:
*Game balance in a 4 person game where 2-3 of the individuals are PvP and the remaining individual(s) is/are stuck trying to handle the PvM alone.
*Games where no on in the game wants any sort of PvP.
Just like a "game type" (PvP allowed vs not allowed) system would do nothing to address:
When it comes right down to it, I played Diablo for years; I played D2 for even longer and in neither game did griefing become the apparent plague on my gametime that it did for some of you. I am sorry that you were either pursued to the degree that the game became no longer enjoyable for you (or worse that you were just completely inept at defending yourself/selves) but I still don't think that warrents a game design where world PvP is a complete non-option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Liquid Cooled Intel I7 2700k OC'd to 5.0ghz at a max pull of 1.44v ~ 19-21C Idle ~ 68C max under load.
16GB G Skill Ram ~ 2x Mushkin 120GB SSD's ~ MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozer ~ Asus P8P67 Deluxe
I never said it was a final solution... it was an idea. Something people on a forum could take and modify, correct, or who knows - maybe devise alternative solutions to.
The need to vacate wasn't truly necessary either - you could always go to town.
Now that I think about it - D2 told enemies where you were - D3 wouldn't necessarily have to do that so an individual may never even know what act you're in (let alone what zone).
As to your second comment, I feel like you're reading everything entirely too literally. My point is - if you feel like fighting someone I don't think you should have to leave the game and join an arena just to do that. You've completely failed to mention my alternative solution: a simple dueling system. Any critique there?
"Or, what, you think that if you beat someone in world PvP he's going to magically stop being a dick?"
When many of the "dicks" that are trying to grief you are preteen boys - yes. If you outgear/outskill them and you demonstrate that by smashing their hopes of your own demise by killing them they tend to dissapear.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Liquid Cooled Intel I7 2700k OC'd to 5.0ghz at a max pull of 1.44v ~ 19-21C Idle ~ 68C max under load.
16GB G Skill Ram ~ 2x Mushkin 120GB SSD's ~ MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozer ~ Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Hostily won't be reintroduced though. It was an early pvp system with many flaws, many of which have been improved upon in other games, and they've given us arena and slapped us across the face with "diablo is about killing monsters" game.
The old hostility system was actually terrible for griefing any way you cut it. Once you die your time in that game is practically over. You can't fight someone with 100 times your character's power. Also people generally won't put their backs up against the wall and willingly play in games where there is the potential risk of being ganked, although some of those same people wouldn't have minded being the predator when things were more convenient.
Anyhow I say we stop beating a dead horse and start proposing some more realistic ideas.
Honestly, no solution for world PvP will be a 'good' one from what I can tell. Any solution harms one side or another. PvP specific games, will have very long queue time as the majority play PvM. Allowing a form of hostility harms PvM players by forcing them into PvP when they don't wish to be. If they aren't forced to actually PvP (say they teleport to town), they are stuck having to quit the game or wait for the PvP'er to get tired of PvPing in order to continue progressing. These just aren't good options.
I really don't even agree to the reason you suggested for wanting world PvP, Glitterpony. Having the ability to 'put people in their place' isn't a GOOD feature. To me, it really sounds like bullying and how does that help the community? No, I think Arena is the best place for PvP in Diablo 3 nothing anyone has suggested so far has changed that.
The need to vacate wasn't truly necessary either - you could always go to town.
Doesn't matter, you're still being forced to do something you don't want to, just because someone is feeling dickish.
You're right it doesn't - I've said it before and I'll say it again... I was looking for a comprimise that would allow for world PvP for those that wanted it - but clearly you have less interested in reading into the spirit of the post and more interested in shutting down any idea of the concept.
Now that I think about it - D2 told enemies where you were - D3 wouldn't necessarily have to do that so an individual may never even know what act you're in (let alone what zone).
D3 also tells other people where you are (the banners in town).
I forgot it's impossible to reprogram something like that so that it's not visible to enemies.
As to your second comment, I feel like you're reading everything entirely too literally. My point is - if you feel like fighting someone I don't think you should have to leave the game and join an arena just to do that. You've completely failed to mention my alternative solution: a simple dueling system. Any critique there?
Oh, is that right? How about you actually read people's posts in previous pages, instead of just posting and not reading? Just from browsing the first couple of pages this thread (I've posted in other, similar threads), I found this:
Bilateral hostility - yes, IF there was a way to prevent the spamming of invites. After all, it's fun to MF with your mate for an hour and then challenge him to a quick duel, to test out the gear yo both found.
Unilateral hostility - definitely not. Only griefers want this.
So, you know....read what other people write.
I like the bilateral hostility concept, and you're right - I didn't read that previously... mostly because I was busy trying to explain what I thought was obvious in my original post (that it was JUST AN IDEA) from some clown that only wanted to mock the idea instead of providing any feedback. The standard /laugh mentality is not remotely useful when developing a concept.
From what your bilateral hostility statement indicates, you and I completely agree that at least a dueling system (provided a spamming avoidance mechanic is in place) is a good way to provide world pvp functionality.
All this comes down to one thing, the only thing I ever even cared about:
Would you (or anyone else reading this) agree that some sort of world pvp (if only a dueling system) should be present as an alternative to strictly joining arenas?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Liquid Cooled Intel I7 2700k OC'd to 5.0ghz at a max pull of 1.44v ~ 19-21C Idle ~ 68C max under load.
16GB G Skill Ram ~ 2x Mushkin 120GB SSD's ~ MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozer ~ Asus P8P67 Deluxe
I like the bilateral hostility concept, and you're right - I didn't read that previously... mostly because I was busy trying to explain what I thought was obvious in my original post (that it was JUST AN IDEA) from some clown that only wanted to mock the idea instead of providing any feedback. The standard /laugh mentality is not remotely useful when developing a concept.
From what your bilateral hostility statement indicates, you and I completely agree that at least a dueling system (provided a spamming avoidance mechanic is in place) is a good way to provide world pvp functionality.
All this comes down to one thing, the only thing I ever even cared about:
Would you (or anyone else reading this) agree that some sort of world pvp (if only a dueling system) should be present as an alternative to strictly joining arenas?
A duel system like this still doesn't address the issue of two people dueling and ruining the fun of two other players in the game. That'd be the only issue I have with it. The game is designed in a way that requires most/all of the players in a game to progress, so this duel system would cause some problems still. Since its a mutual duel anyways, why is this better then just a duel option for Arena? Kinda curious..
Something they could do, which has probably already been mentioned, is to put an area in game that's specifically for warfare. Like how Gurubashi/Nagrand/Blade's Edge Arena for WoW exist as FFA area's in the open world. The downside to this is, with the way the game works, it would probably be limited to FFA and not possible for 2v2 to happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
a shade of timelessness~
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The one thing I've been saying and I just don't agree with you on is the fact of how little griefing happened in games that were 100% dedicated to PvM, like Baal, PvM named games. So on that we will never agree, I've done them thousands and thousands of times so I know damn well what goes on. Again, I agree hostility would NEVER work in its current state that D3 is in and that is no game names. Bring those back and I feel it would be a lot smoother. I hate arenas, always have and always will bottled up pvp isn't real pvp to me. we need wide open spaces. I would suggest making games with a check mark options, allow hostility or don't. BUT FOR GODS SAKE BRING BACK GAME NAMES, I dunno who the hell thought it was a great idea to get rid of that but he should be fired, plane and simple the single worst change they did even more then hostility. Make it so that you can simply say in the game title PvM or PvP come join the fun! and its as simple as that, you could even have battles over events and rares in games where the maker allowed hostility while it wouldn't be AS fun, with the current way that I just now found out that every one gets their own gear it would work out I think. This is a win win for every one, we get world pvp while not as spontaneous sometimes its about all that's left with how they changed things.
It's too bad they changed the way loot works that was a great part of it was winning that loot being the fast clicker! but we gotta work with what we have so I feel if they would just simply bring back titles and descriptions of games it could work, simply click hostility on or off.
EDIT: again :D! This thread made me realize something...and that's the fact that them removing game names pisses me off far more then the removal of hostility....Maybe I wanna trade xxxx item for yyyyy item? Maybe I want a few pairs of Imps for my Wizzies, or 08 valk or maybe I'd like 3/20/20's and I have other items I'd like to trade for them? From what I can see on beta there is no option to do such a thing. Someone please correct me on this if I'm mistaken because that blows my mind why they would do that.
Solution: Remove player ability to declare hostility. Channel all PVP into arenas. PVP and PVM is possible now. No hostility griefing. Problem solved. Objective met.
Bad Solution: Rely on players to behave and not declare hostility in PVM titled names. Probability of griefing = x, where x > 0. Solution does not meet objectives.
Problem: Some players desire for world pvp to be implemented. However this cannot come at the expense of allowing player griefing.
Solution: No feasible solution has been proposed that will have probability of hostility griefing at 0. Until a feasible solution is proposed, world pvp cannot be implemented.
...
But history shows that when you actually do this, the whiny people take this to mean the whole world agrees with their point of view, and are therefore right.
It is quite tiresome.
For the sake of both parties, I think pvp should be isolated away from PvM, and if that is the case (as it is), it's no longer too farfetched of an idea to ask for more isolated pvp options/modes.
I get the argument about resources, as to why we can't have more content/emphasis on pvp. However a year down the line that should not be as big a deal, and I expect to see more detail put in for the part of blizzard's fanbase that want pvp any way they can get it.
Practically, it is just not a feasible solution.
That's why it's not the best solution. If half of all players loved random world pvp, then it'd be no problem. But while many people apparently love/like/can deal with controlled pvp, they don't appreciate being messed with, which is understandable.
The better solution is to just make the non-arena, arena, more like starcraft 2 than wow's. Allow people to, whenever they want, dick around with their own set of rules with specific players (IE friends, or a team for a community tournament etc), duel to the death w/ respawns 1v1, ffa for 8, etc.
More options, more features, and they would only add to the game. The only argument against it is resources, especially since we're some 43 days away from launch. However if people can come to a mutual agreement and get more and more people on the same page, the sooner we could as a community come to a decision as to what features we want to see in the game, and start making more constructive posts and garner more attention for the devs.
I trust blizzard to make a great game, but they still take popular opinion of the community to heart, to an extent. For those of you who have been playing sc2 you've seen them make a good many changes in the past half year or so proving this.
That's very true, it's hard to kill people without your power (equipment/corpse), and you could leave a game instantly, safely even if threatening people tried to back up their friends and go hostile. It was rpg pvp in its infancy, wow did it much better than d2. If you die so much as one time, even if it's 1vs4, you're pretty much skrewed so long as the others don't completely fail at corpse camping. There were other drawbacks such as spamming skills on waypoints or at the rogue encampment bridge as well. Not to say wow world pvp was perfect, it was just much better.
Hostility is a piece of junk for even semi-serious pvp, though it's a system that would work for some players, like me, it's not something I think should be implemented into the game given the surrounding situation.
I don't see how it fully allows griefing - it's hard to grief anyone in your level range when you've effectively been gimped for several minutes at least. It could actually result in a would-be griefer getting his faced stuffed by his intended victim(s). The percentage could always be adjusted to start at a greater value and retract at a different rate...
In any case the idea is: Someone could come in, declare hostility, and effectively not hunt you down in seconds... they'd have to wait. This gives anyone not interested in a fight several minutes to finish up what they're doing (or get to a checkpoint) and then vacate the game.
You're definetely right when you say that it doesn't address how to handle PvM when 2 (or greater) of the individuals in a 4 person game aren't assisting everyone else. That's another issue altogether - I was just throwing an idea out there on a way to bring back the "world pvp" that some people clearly desire. Not everyone wants a structured pvp system.
I already said it doesn't much matter to me either way. I'll be playing both PvM and PvP - I can't say that I'll miss the old hostility system, but I can't say that I think a complete lack of in-game PvP was a great move either...
16GB G Skill Ram ~ 2x Mushkin 120GB SSD's ~ MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozer ~ Asus P8P67 Deluxe
The fact that the griefer or non consensual PVPer is gimped or reduced in effectiveness is not relevant. The problem is non consensual PVP. Players being forced to engage in PVP when they want no part of it. Any solution that involves the possibility that a player might get involved in non consensual PVP is not going to fly.
You want an open world pvp system? Only if it doesn't cause non consensual PVP. The most feasible suggestion so far involves separating open pvp games and non open pvp games but this is both limited by resources and the small player base which will make matchmaking waits very long.
It's totally better to complain, mock, and ridicule a concept than to offer up any sort of solution. I don't know what I was thinking...
As it stands now, it feels like if you come across an individual in-game that you would like to "put in their place" you'll have to effectively request to meet them by the flagpole at 3:00 (ask them to join an arena vs you). That totally works because we all know that fighting and conflict are never spontaneous in nature and rarely do these sort of things happen without first the agreement to meet in battle on fair terms.
This is what I'd call good feedback. It brings up valid points. Anyone who bothered to read the entire thread or even just from my first post would know I was never trying to impliment my proposed system in the first place so much as introduce another concept...
It's very true that "Rules of Engagement" would do nothing to address:
*Game balance in a 4 person game where 2-3 of the individuals are PvP and the remaining individual(s) is/are stuck trying to handle the PvM alone.
*Games where no on in the game wants any sort of PvP.
Just like a "game type" (PvP allowed vs not allowed) system would do nothing to address:
*Matchmaking issues - particularly increased wait times.
When it comes right down to it, I played Diablo for years; I played D2 for even longer and in neither game did griefing become the apparent plague on my gametime that it did for some of you. I am sorry that you were either pursued to the degree that the game became no longer enjoyable for you (or worse that you were just completely inept at defending yourself/selves) but I still don't think that warrents a game design where world PvP is a complete non-option.
16GB G Skill Ram ~ 2x Mushkin 120GB SSD's ~ MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozer ~ Asus P8P67 Deluxe
The need to vacate wasn't truly necessary either - you could always go to town.
Now that I think about it - D2 told enemies where you were - D3 wouldn't necessarily have to do that so an individual may never even know what act you're in (let alone what zone).
As to your second comment, I feel like you're reading everything entirely too literally. My point is - if you feel like fighting someone I don't think you should have to leave the game and join an arena just to do that. You've completely failed to mention my alternative solution: a simple dueling system. Any critique there?
"Or, what, you think that if you beat someone in world PvP he's going to magically stop being a dick?"
When many of the "dicks" that are trying to grief you are preteen boys - yes. If you outgear/outskill them and you demonstrate that by smashing their hopes of your own demise by killing them they tend to dissapear.
16GB G Skill Ram ~ 2x Mushkin 120GB SSD's ~ MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozer ~ Asus P8P67 Deluxe
The old hostility system was actually terrible for griefing any way you cut it. Once you die your time in that game is practically over. You can't fight someone with 100 times your character's power. Also people generally won't put their backs up against the wall and willingly play in games where there is the potential risk of being ganked, although some of those same people wouldn't have minded being the predator when things were more convenient.
Anyhow I say we stop beating a dead horse and start proposing some more realistic ideas.
I really don't even agree to the reason you suggested for wanting world PvP, Glitterpony. Having the ability to 'put people in their place' isn't a GOOD feature. To me, it really sounds like bullying and how does that help the community? No, I think Arena is the best place for PvP in Diablo 3 nothing anyone has suggested so far has changed that.
You're right it doesn't - I've said it before and I'll say it again... I was looking for a comprimise that would allow for world PvP for those that wanted it - but clearly you have less interested in reading into the spirit of the post and more interested in shutting down any idea of the concept.
I forgot it's impossible to reprogram something like that so that it's not visible to enemies.
I like the bilateral hostility concept, and you're right - I didn't read that previously... mostly because I was busy trying to explain what I thought was obvious in my original post (that it was JUST AN IDEA) from some clown that only wanted to mock the idea instead of providing any feedback. The standard /laugh mentality is not remotely useful when developing a concept.
From what your bilateral hostility statement indicates, you and I completely agree that at least a dueling system (provided a spamming avoidance mechanic is in place) is a good way to provide world pvp functionality.
All this comes down to one thing, the only thing I ever even cared about:
Would you (or anyone else reading this) agree that some sort of world pvp (if only a dueling system) should be present as an alternative to strictly joining arenas?
16GB G Skill Ram ~ 2x Mushkin 120GB SSD's ~ MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozer ~ Asus P8P67 Deluxe
A duel system like this still doesn't address the issue of two people dueling and ruining the fun of two other players in the game. That'd be the only issue I have with it. The game is designed in a way that requires most/all of the players in a game to progress, so this duel system would cause some problems still. Since its a mutual duel anyways, why is this better then just a duel option for Arena? Kinda curious..