I for one really love linux in general, my only gripe with it is in terms of gaming. I own my computer almost solely for the purpose of gaming, and getting games to run on Linux through WINE or Virtual Box can be quite a pain, and quite frankly not worth the effort.
I was wondering if other people would make a switch over to some linux distro is Blizzard started to make their games with a native linux client. I for one would, and I'd love to hear other people's opinions on the subject.
Games are the only thing keeping me on a windows box at home. I run linux on my work machine. I know you can run most games without issue through WINE or Cedega, but I would rather they run natively. My reasoning for running linux is to get away from windows-based programs, not use emulators to essentially do the same thing.
The day all of the games I play have a linux port, I wipe my computer and drop on a linux distro.
Now how can I be misinformed when I KNOW it did happen to me? Mistaken, maybe. I quit playing MP after that incident. It burned me more than you realize.
I never SAID my copy was special other than I got a copy when it was first release therefore having NO patches done to it as of yet.
You quit the game after someone killed you once, wasting 15 minutes of your life to re-grind the experience?
Man, I would hate to see how you handle the challenges of life.
What do you mean "zero competition"? The loot drops were pretty random in MP in D1 and D2 so one never knew what they would get. As of the PK'ing issue again, the only competiton would be between the 2 players, or more, not who killed the boss first or what not. If you think about it the competiton would increase because you would be only dealing with EXPERIENCED PK'ers.......hmmm....."EXPERIENCED PK'ers"?... That's what it's about. YOU WANT EASY KILLS!!! Diablo forbid you from having easy PK'S. Diablo ALSO forbid random PK'ing rampages going from MP game to MP game. Especially if hackers start running amok again and Blizzard has to play catch-up all the time to hinder the hackers. So why not let us that don't want to have deal with random PK'ers have the option to enable or disable those features? Or least not want to have to deal with it YET.
I'd rather have the ability to PK for the reason to laugh at people attempting to kill me as opposed to joining random games to kill a player. If you actually have a clue how to play and learn to play your character well, you can deal with your average player laughably easy.
It's not the idea that I want to actively seek out killing players in the game, but the fact that you CAN that leads me to support PKing. I want the ability to enforce myself on players who are crowding my areas. I want to be able to get revenge on that guy who just trained through half the map to kill the rare spawn before I could. I want a way to shut up a shit talker without ignoring him. You think people are immature with the hostile button? Imagine how bad things are going to be without one. People aren't going to attempt to kill you, they are going to grief you by stealing your kills, training mobs on you, and doing whatever they can to make your game miserable. The best part? There's nothing you can do to stop them except leave the game. Gee, this sounds familiar, except in the other scenario you can do something about it instead of get trampled on.
Imagine a game without cheats or exploits. Using the current d2 system, the player would have to be in town, click hostile to you, and then run from the entrance of the spawn to where you are. That gives you ADEQUATE time to do whatever it takes to be prepared to fight or get out. This whole "not prepared, easy kill" argument is garbage. You can easily be prepared to face whatever comes at you in a game. Take some time to learn how to do it and you will have a lot of fun embarassing players.
This might sound like sour grapes but plain and simple PVP can KMA I HATE PVP with a boundless rage that could single handedly bring the prime evils back from the dead. PVP was the reason I stopped playing WOW, PVP was the reason I stopped playing Ultima online and PVP was the reason I stopped playing any of a dozen of other games over the years. If I had a dollar for every time was in a nice friendly B-net game and some Cheating PVP @hole popped in and slaughtered my group I could afford to have Bill Gates mow my lawn. If I had a nickel for every time I started a game titled PVKnotok and had people Join and Harp about wanting to PVP me and my group or complain that it is there God Given rights to kill anyone they want to then Warren Buffett would be washing my dishes, heck if I had a Dime for every time I found two or three good solid players with low ping times and we were rocking Hell only to have some USDA choice Grade A rumpnuggett with a name like gotzyrearz pop in go hostile and follow my group around being a being a pest then Sam Walton’s kids would be waxing my Car. I am sure there are good PVP’ers out there and I am sure there are PVP’ers that know when they are not wanted but I sure as all H E double hockey Sticks haven’t seen them. Been Playing Diablo, Diablo 2, star craft since the first week it was out never meet a PVP I liked so sorry to all the good PVP’ers out there but I am lumping you all together as bad eggs.
DOWN WITH PVP
Sounds like you should probably stick to single player games.
Yes, but if you don't go into public games, you don't interact with this community thing I keep bringing up... this is supposed to be a cooperative game yes? The community aspect is to allow a decently friendly interface for all people, be it new players, or veterans looking for others to explore the darkest depths of hell with. Why should I have to curb my behavior, one that is encouraged by Blizzard, just so I can be assured that my entertainment won't be ruined by something that supposedly cannot be helped?
So your idea of "community" is joining 8++ KILL COWS FAST! games? I figure you'd have a much better gaming experience if you actually joined some of the pre-made battle.net channels to find players with like minded interests. From there, you make a private game and do your thing.
You can also join a clan of pve individuals and group with them, again in private games.
As I said before, when you join a Starcraft public game and somebody imposes some imaginary rule like "NO RUSH 15", there's no way to enforce it. You are constantly going to have people doing their own things. Now if you get several friends together and play a game - you can enforce whatever rules you want.
There's plenty of community outside of doing a /random 100 and picking a game from the list based on that. In fact, I can ensure that you can enjoy the carebear gaming style much more effectively by making friends in this game and playing with them, not relying on public games to do it.
Though to direct your question back at you, why should you have to curb your behavior? The same reason you are trying to make me curb mine.
Make PvP and PvE realms. Problem solved. Carebears go to one, real players go to the other and there isn't an issue ever again.
Sounds like an addon I have on my WoW character that counts how many times I jump. Last time I checked, I was about to push past the 1 million jump mark since the release of the expansion.
One other note: By incorporating a system that allows for hostile actions against non-consensual players, you cater to both groups. Carebears have their private games to avoid this style of play. If you remove this feature, you cater to one group and completely exclude the other.
One choice gives both sides options, one does not.
Listen, if Pking isn't going to be in the game then we will have to slaughter each other in PvP. Obviously from Blizzards response to Pking, they don't seem to like it or "lawless chaos" so your best bet is to own noobs in PvP.
So man up and get ready to get owned over and over by my hand in PvP. Instead of crying like a baby about how you can't randomly kill people in public games, why don't you try calling me a carebear in a PvP game after I string a nice necklace from all the ears you'll be giving me. That is of course if you are still going to play the game which, even without Pking, I bet you will.
I never really cared one way or another about Pking in D2 though I did like dueling others. However, some of you sure do talk tough, so lets see how well that tough talk translates to PvP in Diablo3.
We'll see
A lot of the people who defined early diablo2 pvp are going to play diablo3 together. Expect to see these people front-running builds, item setups, and duel outcomes.
Just because Sims sold more doesn't make it better, actually I couldn't find a more boring game than Sims if I tried.
Are you suggesting that only D2 and Starcraft fans read PC Gamer or whoever made that poll? I'd be willing to bet good money that even now 8 years after release D2 would still beat Sims as "Which is the better game?" by leaps and bounds.
You completely missed the point of my reply. I'm saying that the type of person who plays the Sims most likely doesn't read PC Gamer magazine/website. This means any sort of poll that asks what the best game is will not hit their fans.
It's like going to the NHL website forums and asking people what their favorite sport is then declaring hockey the best sport ever because it won a landslide vote.
Total game sales has a lot to say about how many people enjoy a game. Just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean that it lacks a strong following. If they released a my little pony MMORPG that appealed to 13 year old girls, I'm sure the 13 year old girls (and the 45 year old men that follow them) would buy millions of copies of the game. To them, this could be the best game ever (for varying reasons) while you might still be appalled by it.
In the end, you're basing the popularity of a game/set of games off a single poll from a website that nobody really cares about anyways. I can't stand visiting any of those online game sites because all you find are dumb articles that go nowhere separated by 20 pages of advertisements. It's the GQ equivalent of online sites.
A few years ago PC Gamer or some such had a sort of game deathmatch for best game in history, where they put games head to head and people would vote for the one they thought was the best, than the winners would move on and go head to head until only 2 games were left. Unfortunetly Diablo2 lost in the final to ... Starcraft. Untill the final Diablo2 thrashed all other competition by the tens of thousands of votes.
It was clear only thing that can defeat a Blizzard game is only another Blizzard game. To put Sims and Diablo2 in the same sentance should be a crime against gaming.
Perhaps the people who play "The Sims" aren't the type of game players that read PC Gamer magazine
If you go strictly by sales, the Sims wins most popular by a large margin:
That's like hosting a "what is the best game ever? Diablo or ______( insert any game here) ____" on this site. This website is dedicated to the pre-discussion of a game still 2 years out. I'd say most of the viewers here are fairly die-hard fans that consider the diablo series to be one of the best around. It's called having a bias for the polls. Similarly, if you went to a WoW website and asked what is better, WoW or Age of Conan? you'd most likely receive a similar biased answer.
No most certainly not. The majority of Diablo players did not feel the same way.
Not many people like to be betrayed, or betray other people, and just kill people for fun. That's a skewed perspective and if you honestly get pleasure from causing others grief you should seek help.
Perhaps The Sims would be a better fit for your expectations?
I and any others shouldn't have to change their gameplay to avoid PKs, the initial point of the game is the storyline. No one should have to avoid being killed over and over or make their game private so they aren't PKd
They had the option to avoid PKing by adding passwords to your game. That's the point of it. That's like going into a Starcraft public game and expecting 'no rush' or enforcing some sort of arbitrary rule on another person. You want your rules and to be left alone? You create the game.
Unfortunately that wasn't the case in most situations. Also similar levels = duel game, there was plenty of those.
How are duel games any less fun that PKing I don't get that. You'd expect people in a duel game to put up more of a fight because they're prepared and not killed in a second when you surprise attack them.
Because in those games people just mindlessly ran around. It got really repetitive after the first little bit. Being able to hostile someone in the game is a way to get entertainment while doing other (mandatory, repetitive and less fun) things.
PvP is important, but I think it can be kept dynamic without PKing on a large scale, possibly the hostile only people near your level thing could work.
You can't claim to have a pvp system if everything is consensual. Let's say you zoned into a game and another person was clearing your zone. You ask "hey can we share?" and he retorts back "blow me." That's a situation where you run to town, hostile him, and kill him then proceed to take the rest of his monsters.
There's plenty of griefing that can be done without ever going hostile to someone. Shadowing someone and taking their drops as they happen? Killing important spawns before they can get to them. Training monsters onto them. All will be rampant in the next game if you can't just hostile and kill someone.
Except PKing wasn't just about dealing with someone who was being rude. It was abused plenty to TPPK and to kill lower levels all the time.
You have plenty of notice if someone is chasing you. If you're cautious about where you join, you can avoid being killed by pretty much anyone. And even if you do? Who cares. The experience you lost at a low level can be got back in 5 minutes. If you're complaining about PKing with the aid of a hack or a cheat, then which are you truely complaining about?
I really cannot see the reason for PKing unless you enjoy killing people, specifically lower levels.
That's the exact behavior they are acting against...
I did enjoy killing people, no I didn't farm lower levels. It's much more rewarding to kill someone at or above your level.
If you're so concerned about low level griefing, why not settle for something where you can 1-way hostile someone within 10 levels of you.
Hopefully in D3 the exp won't be so hard you'll need 8 person games to gain some.
I hope it isn't a carebear game that has no in-game player interaction. Duels are fun, but they get boring fast unless you have a large community to play with. Duel games are retarded since all you do is run around and kill people - most of which are terrible. That's fun for oh, 5 minutes?
You need a more dynamic pvp system to keep interest - especially if you have a game where a large part of improving your character is repetition. Farm this, reload, farm again, reload, farm gain. Over and over and over. Something to spice that up would be greatly appreciated - and the repetition of that is what caused people to create the first farming bots.
I suppose it could work I just don't see them creating 4 different game worlds on each server. They said they want to work on cooperative play.
It just seems like they don't like the idea of PKing at all, I don't know if they'll go out of their way with all that trouble just to appease the people that "would enjoy nothing more than to see others frustrated."
So we'd have PvP softcore, PvP hardcore, PvE softcore, PvE hardcore, (POSSIBLY) PvP Ladder, and PvE ladder.
So that's 5-6 divisions on each realm.
The idea behind PKing is not just griefing, it's the thrill of competition. I was the type of player in diablo2 where I'd go into a game, hostile everybody, then go on my way and do my own thing. It's much more fun to be in the world, encounter someone, and face off against them.
If you were in the game to farm an item or farm experience and somebody else is taking your zone, you get rid of them - plain and simple. It's hardly a quesiton of 'griefing' since that player can, in turn, resurrect and come back after you. Griefing is a terrible word for what it really is - PvP competition. It's dumb sharing a zone when you can have the entire thing to yourself. On a similar note, if I'm doing my thing and somebody wants a piece of it, I'm more than willing to either fight for it or concede by porting out if I feel my experience is too valuable. Everybody puts their cards in the middle and the winner is decided.
On a similar note, back before the expansion when getting to level 99 took a team of players playing on a 24/7 shift to achieve, I was helping my friend level his mid 90s sorceress. We'd join an 8 person game (since anything less simply didn't give any experience), hostile everybody in the game, and run through to the CS and clear the people out. This would open things up so he could come through behind us and tag the diablo kill, giving him that small fraction of an experience bar. Without the active PK system, you would have to hunt through about 10 different games to find one where the chaos sanctuary was open and diablo wasn't killed. This was a huge waste of time compared to the alternative.
Another example of a similar system is a WoW - PvP server. Sure you don't lose experience when you die, but Blizzard has stood behind the fact that corpse camping is not against the TOS. In a case like that, you could be killed by an opposing player while you are at 20% hitpoints and then corpse camped until you log off. The time you waste not being able to play is just as much if not longer than the amount of time it takes to recover lost experience if you're leveling since WoW takes a heck of a lot longer to progress through.
What a WoW PvP server does add is player interaction. You don't like somebody taking your mobs? You kill them. You're completing a quest alone and the enemy comes through with a few people for the same quest? You're going to die over and over until they're done. Allowing players unrestrained PvP access adds a huge dynamic to the game. The "kill or be killed" mentality means you are always on your toes and always concerned about being prepared. Removing this dynamic turns the game into one where people hold hands, sing songs, and act against the theme of the game. It would be like if you could only play CoD4 against the computer over XBOX-Live. Multi-player games that are played online should be played against other players as well as with them. Eliminating one aspect of the game is like cutting off one of its legs.
It's also going to go against what they're working for. Cooperative play.
If we have PVP Hardcore, PvP Softcore, PvE Hardcore, PvE Softcore, it's going to divide the community way too much.
DIfferent than, say, USEast, USWest, Europe, Asia?
How do you divide a community that only has 8 people in a game at once? There will still be thousands of players on each server.
Using WoW as an example (since everything Blizzard does appears to be measured against it) - there are over 100 servers with 10,000-15,000 players on each. Never do you get a sense of there being less community. In many cases, there is more because you actually see familiar faces around.
If you look at diablo2 sales and project that even a fraction of those people try out d3, having enough people around will not be a problem. The end result will be that you actually are playing with people you want to play with.
By the way, yes the post is biased. The player vs player aspect of the game is what is going to drive my decision on whether or not to purchase it.
0
Games are the only thing keeping me on a windows box at home. I run linux on my work machine. I know you can run most games without issue through WINE or Cedega, but I would rather they run natively. My reasoning for running linux is to get away from windows-based programs, not use emulators to essentially do the same thing.
The day all of the games I play have a linux port, I wipe my computer and drop on a linux distro.
0
You quit the game after someone killed you once, wasting 15 minutes of your life to re-grind the experience?
Man, I would hate to see how you handle the challenges of life.
0
I'd rather have the ability to PK for the reason to laugh at people attempting to kill me as opposed to joining random games to kill a player. If you actually have a clue how to play and learn to play your character well, you can deal with your average player laughably easy.
It's not the idea that I want to actively seek out killing players in the game, but the fact that you CAN that leads me to support PKing. I want the ability to enforce myself on players who are crowding my areas. I want to be able to get revenge on that guy who just trained through half the map to kill the rare spawn before I could. I want a way to shut up a shit talker without ignoring him. You think people are immature with the hostile button? Imagine how bad things are going to be without one. People aren't going to attempt to kill you, they are going to grief you by stealing your kills, training mobs on you, and doing whatever they can to make your game miserable. The best part? There's nothing you can do to stop them except leave the game. Gee, this sounds familiar, except in the other scenario you can do something about it instead of get trampled on.
Imagine a game without cheats or exploits. Using the current d2 system, the player would have to be in town, click hostile to you, and then run from the entrance of the spawn to where you are. That gives you ADEQUATE time to do whatever it takes to be prepared to fight or get out. This whole "not prepared, easy kill" argument is garbage. You can easily be prepared to face whatever comes at you in a game. Take some time to learn how to do it and you will have a lot of fun embarassing players.
0
Sounds like you should probably stick to single player games.
0
So your idea of "community" is joining 8++ KILL COWS FAST! games? I figure you'd have a much better gaming experience if you actually joined some of the pre-made battle.net channels to find players with like minded interests. From there, you make a private game and do your thing.
You can also join a clan of pve individuals and group with them, again in private games.
As I said before, when you join a Starcraft public game and somebody imposes some imaginary rule like "NO RUSH 15", there's no way to enforce it. You are constantly going to have people doing their own things. Now if you get several friends together and play a game - you can enforce whatever rules you want.
There's plenty of community outside of doing a /random 100 and picking a game from the list based on that. In fact, I can ensure that you can enjoy the carebear gaming style much more effectively by making friends in this game and playing with them, not relying on public games to do it.
Though to direct your question back at you, why should you have to curb your behavior? The same reason you are trying to make me curb mine.
Make PvP and PvE realms. Problem solved. Carebears go to one, real players go to the other and there isn't an issue ever again.
0
That's a lot of spacebar pushes...
0
One choice gives both sides options, one does not.
0
We'll see
A lot of the people who defined early diablo2 pvp are going to play diablo3 together. Expect to see these people front-running builds, item setups, and duel outcomes.
0
You completely missed the point of my reply. I'm saying that the type of person who plays the Sims most likely doesn't read PC Gamer magazine/website. This means any sort of poll that asks what the best game is will not hit their fans.
It's like going to the NHL website forums and asking people what their favorite sport is then declaring hockey the best sport ever because it won a landslide vote.
Total game sales has a lot to say about how many people enjoy a game. Just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean that it lacks a strong following. If they released a my little pony MMORPG that appealed to 13 year old girls, I'm sure the 13 year old girls (and the 45 year old men that follow them) would buy millions of copies of the game. To them, this could be the best game ever (for varying reasons) while you might still be appalled by it.
In the end, you're basing the popularity of a game/set of games off a single poll from a website that nobody really cares about anyways. I can't stand visiting any of those online game sites because all you find are dumb articles that go nowhere separated by 20 pages of advertisements. It's the GQ equivalent of online sites.
0
Perhaps the people who play "The Sims" aren't the type of game players that read PC Gamer magazine
If you go strictly by sales, the Sims wins most popular by a large margin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PC
That's like hosting a "what is the best game ever? Diablo or ______( insert any game here) ____" on this site. This website is dedicated to the pre-discussion of a game still 2 years out. I'd say most of the viewers here are fairly die-hard fans that consider the diablo series to be one of the best around. It's called having a bias for the polls. Similarly, if you went to a WoW website and asked what is better, WoW or Age of Conan? you'd most likely receive a similar biased answer.
0
Perhaps The Sims would be a better fit for your expectations?
0
They had the option to avoid PKing by adding passwords to your game. That's the point of it. That's like going into a Starcraft public game and expecting 'no rush' or enforcing some sort of arbitrary rule on another person. You want your rules and to be left alone? You create the game.
Because in those games people just mindlessly ran around. It got really repetitive after the first little bit. Being able to hostile someone in the game is a way to get entertainment while doing other (mandatory, repetitive and less fun) things.
You can't claim to have a pvp system if everything is consensual. Let's say you zoned into a game and another person was clearing your zone. You ask "hey can we share?" and he retorts back "blow me." That's a situation where you run to town, hostile him, and kill him then proceed to take the rest of his monsters.
There's plenty of griefing that can be done without ever going hostile to someone. Shadowing someone and taking their drops as they happen? Killing important spawns before they can get to them. Training monsters onto them. All will be rampant in the next game if you can't just hostile and kill someone.
0
You have plenty of notice if someone is chasing you. If you're cautious about where you join, you can avoid being killed by pretty much anyone. And even if you do? Who cares. The experience you lost at a low level can be got back in 5 minutes. If you're complaining about PKing with the aid of a hack or a cheat, then which are you truely complaining about?
I did enjoy killing people, no I didn't farm lower levels. It's much more rewarding to kill someone at or above your level.
If you're so concerned about low level griefing, why not settle for something where you can 1-way hostile someone within 10 levels of you.
I hope it isn't a carebear game that has no in-game player interaction. Duels are fun, but they get boring fast unless you have a large community to play with. Duel games are retarded since all you do is run around and kill people - most of which are terrible. That's fun for oh, 5 minutes?
You need a more dynamic pvp system to keep interest - especially if you have a game where a large part of improving your character is repetition. Farm this, reload, farm again, reload, farm gain. Over and over and over. Something to spice that up would be greatly appreciated - and the repetition of that is what caused people to create the first farming bots.
0
The idea behind PKing is not just griefing, it's the thrill of competition. I was the type of player in diablo2 where I'd go into a game, hostile everybody, then go on my way and do my own thing. It's much more fun to be in the world, encounter someone, and face off against them.
If you were in the game to farm an item or farm experience and somebody else is taking your zone, you get rid of them - plain and simple. It's hardly a quesiton of 'griefing' since that player can, in turn, resurrect and come back after you. Griefing is a terrible word for what it really is - PvP competition. It's dumb sharing a zone when you can have the entire thing to yourself. On a similar note, if I'm doing my thing and somebody wants a piece of it, I'm more than willing to either fight for it or concede by porting out if I feel my experience is too valuable. Everybody puts their cards in the middle and the winner is decided.
On a similar note, back before the expansion when getting to level 99 took a team of players playing on a 24/7 shift to achieve, I was helping my friend level his mid 90s sorceress. We'd join an 8 person game (since anything less simply didn't give any experience), hostile everybody in the game, and run through to the CS and clear the people out. This would open things up so he could come through behind us and tag the diablo kill, giving him that small fraction of an experience bar. Without the active PK system, you would have to hunt through about 10 different games to find one where the chaos sanctuary was open and diablo wasn't killed. This was a huge waste of time compared to the alternative.
Another example of a similar system is a WoW - PvP server. Sure you don't lose experience when you die, but Blizzard has stood behind the fact that corpse camping is not against the TOS. In a case like that, you could be killed by an opposing player while you are at 20% hitpoints and then corpse camped until you log off. The time you waste not being able to play is just as much if not longer than the amount of time it takes to recover lost experience if you're leveling since WoW takes a heck of a lot longer to progress through.
What a WoW PvP server does add is player interaction. You don't like somebody taking your mobs? You kill them. You're completing a quest alone and the enemy comes through with a few people for the same quest? You're going to die over and over until they're done. Allowing players unrestrained PvP access adds a huge dynamic to the game. The "kill or be killed" mentality means you are always on your toes and always concerned about being prepared. Removing this dynamic turns the game into one where people hold hands, sing songs, and act against the theme of the game. It would be like if you could only play CoD4 against the computer over XBOX-Live. Multi-player games that are played online should be played against other players as well as with them. Eliminating one aspect of the game is like cutting off one of its legs.
0
DIfferent than, say, USEast, USWest, Europe, Asia?
How do you divide a community that only has 8 people in a game at once? There will still be thousands of players on each server.
Using WoW as an example (since everything Blizzard does appears to be measured against it) - there are over 100 servers with 10,000-15,000 players on each. Never do you get a sense of there being less community. In many cases, there is more because you actually see familiar faces around.
If you look at diablo2 sales and project that even a fraction of those people try out d3, having enough people around will not be a problem. The end result will be that you actually are playing with people you want to play with.
By the way, yes the post is biased. The player vs player aspect of the game is what is going to drive my decision on whether or not to purchase it.