PK Rant

[whereagles]

Kas, for someone who wants player aggression out of the game, I find you contradictingly aggressive.. But ok, you're prolly just pissed off.

Also, I DID NOT claim PKing should be in the game because it's realistic. Whether or not PKing is there is an OPTION from the designers, nothing more. An option Blizzo decided for after a lot of thought, whether you believe that or not.

Note also that once the decision is made, the whole company backs it up as a matter of principle and to avoid inside friction. This is why you never heard anti-PK arguments coming from Blizzo ppl. (That would be bad politics.)

[Kasreyn]

I didn't mean to get quite so venemous with you. Peace?

As to Blizzard politics, I can understand presenting a unified front, but I still think Blizzard's tacit acceptance of PK's has more to do with customer demographics than it does with any intended gameplay consequences.

And frankly, I'd really rather think that Blizzard hastily and shortsightedly overlooked the possibility of PKing become what it has become, and then closed ranks and refused to admit error and fix the problem. In that case they'd only be ignorant and incapable of admitting error like most corporations. If I were to believe they consciously included PKing as a feature (which is what I do believe), then they're callous pricks who've sacrificed game quality to marketing value, which is worse.

-Kasreyn

[Occhidiangela]

The delay would allow escape into town while at the same time rendering moot the hacks and scripts that exploit the present system. It is most painful in HC. The delay makes a great deal of sense, given the PK/Hostile system as it has evolved. It allows for policing up games of leachers, for folks who use hostile for that, and it allows for a bit of a warning for those who don't want to get into a scrap, and it allows for the player killing others, an explicit design decision made when Diablo II was released.

The required mutual hostility would preclude the sanction of other non PK griefers, and the boot button could also be abused. Think it through: a jerkoff using the boot button to screw with everyone who entered the game. Easy to abuse.

In short, the timer strikes me as probably the best compromise that addresses both the exploitability of the system, and the design feature that was intended: you have to watch your back in some games.

Now, I find PK's to be a pain, but I can deal with them . . . what I can't deal with is the cheats. It is that series of holes that I wish to see closed, just as the early 'I can go down anyone's tp and PK him' feature got changed.

[Kasreyn]

Love ya Occhi, but I gotta argue a few of these points, k? ;-)

and it allows for the player killing others, an explicit design decision made when Diablo II was released.

Now I have no problem with duelling, but IMO Blizzard made a bogus, irresponsible, and possibly mean-spirited move when they decided to allow unilateral hostility. A mutual requirement won't bother anyone BUT griefers, so how can it be opposed? Certainly not on grounds of gameplay value for non-griefers.

The required mutual hostility would preclude the sanction of other non PK griefers

I don't follow this at all. How would it preclude it? As far as I can tell, at the moment there is no way to sanction ANY griefers of any kind, aside from fleeing the game, which means they've won: they managed to disrupt your play experience. Every time a non-grief player flees from a grief player, the grief player wins.

Think it through: a jerkoff using the boot button to screw with everyone who entered the game.

Easy answer to that, don't join games jerkoffs create. ^_^ IMO under such a system, if you create the game you can boot whoever you want. Your game, your rules; don't like it, make your own game. One requirement I would make: you (the game creator) must be in town to boot anyone. This would cut down on using booting to steal drops, which is the only real abuse of this that I can think of. I would require a minimum time spent in town (say 10 seconds) also, but this might prevent being able to stop a griefer before he does whatever he's planning. Yes, if someone wants to be a jerk, he can boot/ban people for no reason. But they'll just find other games; he'll be the one who winds up alone when people start to shun him. I don't see the problem.

and the design feature that was intended: you have to watch your back in some games.

The problem is, not everyone is interested in this "feature". So why couldn't Blizzard respect their customers enough to give them a choice as to whether they would experience this feature? I mean, it's not like they force you to play only HC characters as soon as they become available. Not everyone is interested in that threat level, or challenge. I'm one of them - I've still never created a HC character, and probably never will. So why force everyone to deal with player hostility? Simple, it makes a certain group of customers interested in buying / continuing to play the game because they can get their kicks, and it makes Blizzard seem cool and relevant to the gaming crowd (which is at least the same age range as the PK demographic, if not always the same temperament), which keeps Blizzard popular.

-Kasreyn

[Archon_Wing]

Now, I find PK's to be a pain, but I can deal with them . . . what I can't deal with is the cheats.  It is that series of holes that I wish to see closed, just as the early 'I can go down anyone's tp and PK him' feature got changed.

I agree with this. If someone can take my ear fair and square without using an exploit or hack, that's fine with me. I don't want to be suddenly dropped from a game and killed by some script kiddy. Thus, the timer is great, even if it is for a few seconds.

I would want one more change though... If someone declares hostility on you, you still should be able to use your party's portals. That gets really annoying. :)

[kandrathe]

I like the timer idea. 10... 9... 8... 7... 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... >ding< >ding< >ding< Go get em PK'er!!! WP now work for you again.

[Bob]

If someone declares hostility on you, you still should be able to use your party's portals.

Unless this already happens, in which case I probably sound like a complete fool... if someone hostiles you when you're in a party, that should be taken as a sign that they are hostiling the entire party, 8 players, 7 in a party, the other one hostiles, collective security. (Obviously this requires bigger parties, people being willing to support their friends etc.)
or better yet, that they are hostiling everyone in the game who isn't in THEIR party.

Some other solutions:

allow host to stop further players entering the game when they've got their 'ideal' party together

Have an 'opt in to hostiling' selection on game creation, rather than an opt out, since so many people don't play duel games it'd save far more mouse clicks.

Have people hostile to you show up on the mini-map right to the edge of the screen, as far as i can tell, they show up at a lesser distance that friends... that's crazy, you're going to be looking out for potential threats.


On the case of realism:
PK'ing doesn't fit into the story line; the seven evils are roaming the planet, demons are pouring in from hell, the entire world is being corrupted. A collection of heros is the last line of defense for the moral realm against this, they must succeed or the world will be consumed in fire... they start killing each other by suprise...

Notice the problem in this description?

-Bob

edit: added last prevention idea and fixed a typo

[Archon_Wing]

But humans will always be humans, mistrusting each other and letting their greed take over them, even when destruction is right over there.

[Kandir]

Just thought I would send a yellow flag to the would be PKK'ers...
If you havent built a low level pvp hc player before, then you are going to be in for a shock the first time you go up against a PK. They are build head to toe for taking out chars even twice their lvl. My lvl 21 assn could do 400 pvp damage, one hit, and that was without tip-top gear. She was a guardian max block and resists, and 800 life. My lvl 29 pala dueler can do 1200 pvp damage. That hurts!

I'm only relaying this message so that you get an early heads up about what you might be getting yourself into. Knowledge is power ya know!

[jahcs]

A few things to avoid PK:
go softcore
play single player games (online or offline)
set the max number of players for just your party
or
put a password on your games
hot key your town portal and wait them out in town


But this whole discussion is not about that. It is about a few people causing you to do things you wouldn't otherwise do (like always looking over your shoulder, playing alone, or starting a new character after you are killed)

A system I have seen work is used in other online games. Some realms allow pk and others do not. Within some realms only certain areas can pk.

By the way, I am in favor of the timer option.

[whereagles]

Kas: cheers.

Anyway, Blizzo's going to put in the timer (they already said it, I think) and there the matter rests.

The PK debate has been around for a long time. Blizzo could have changed the scheme a long time ago, but they didn't, so that's how it is and you either take it or leave it.

[Brista]

Anyway, Blizzo's going to put in the timer (they already said it, I think) and there the matter rests.

An option Bill Roper mentioned they were considering, but not, I think, confirmed as yet

In some ways the timer is quite elegant as solutions go

It leaves enough of a chance at PKing to still keep the people who like it trying. If someone jumps into a full Blood Run game and hostiles, most people do not leave immediately but play on. So the determined PKer can still get ears

It just means people keen not to be PKed can do other things (leaving, going to an obscure area and so on), the people willing to chance it can play until that red name appears on the automap and the have-a-go PKKers can prepare their defence

I still think jerks coming in and kicking over my sandcastles is unpleasant but I am very keen to see people playing freely in public hardcore games and this seems a fix that might allow that to happen

[SwissMercenary]

A few things to avoid PK:
go softcore
play single player games (online or offline)
set the max number of players for just your party
or
put a password on your games
hot key your town portal and wait them out in town


But this whole discussion is not about that.&nbsp; It is about a few people causing you to do things you wouldn't otherwise do (like always looking over your shoulder, playing alone, or starting a new character after you are killed)

A system I have seen work is used in other online games.&nbsp; Some realms allow pk and others do not.&nbsp; Within some realms only certain areas can pk.

By the way, I am in favor of the timer option.

400 dmage? Ha! That's nothing!

2000 damage is more like it...

[Occhidiangela]

Now I have no problem with duelling, but IMO Blizzard made a bogus, irresponsible, and possibly mean-spirited move when they decided to allow unilateral hostility. A mutual requirement won't bother anyone BUT griefers, so how can it be opposed? Certainly not on grounds of gameplay value for non-griefers.

Kas, it is a game design feature: End of sentence, for better or worse. Given that it is a feature, and Blizzard made it, there is still room to keep the desired flavor, for whatever reason, and make adjustments so it does not favor the Grief Player over everyone else in too unbalanced a fashion. Griefers pay money for games too, and Blizz knew that: that is why PK is possible. Now, they have adjusted D II PK a bit since release, and they can adjust it again. What is not worth arguing at all is 'should Blizzard have put it in this way.' The die is cast.

"Should the electoral system be included in the national voting process?" Uh, hello my poofy friends in Florida, it is the system.

The required mutual hostility would preclude the sanction of other non PK griefers

I don't follow this at all. How would it preclude it? As far as I can tell, at the moment there is no way to sanction ANY griefers of any kind, aside from fleeing the game, which means they've won: they managed to disrupt your play experience. Every time a non-grief player flees from a grief player, the grief player wins.

Leechers, beggars, drop stealers, nuisance jerks in a game who wake up monsters just to screw with other folks, Paladins who run around converting stuff when asked not to . . . there are all sorts of anti-social players in a pubbie against whom a quick hostile is the signal to shape up or GTFO. I don't use that method, but many perfectly decent bnet players do. If you had to let him hostile you back, then that ability to clean up a game is gone since the antisocial twerp just does not hit hostile. Folks who sit in town and talk smack can be squelched, no probs.

Think it through: a jerkoff using the boot button to screw with everyone who entered the game.

Easy answer to that, don't join games jerkoffs create. ^_^ IMO under such a system, if you create the game you can boot whoever you want. Your game, your rules; don't like it, make your own game. One requirement I would make: you (the game creator) must be in town to boot anyone. This would cut down on using booting to steal drops, which is the only real abuse of this that I can think of. I would require a minimum time spent in town (say 10 seconds) also, but this might prevent being able to stop a griefer before he does whatever he's planning. Yes, if someone wants to be a jerk, he can boot/ban people for no reason. But they'll just find other games; he'll be the one who winds up alone when people start to shun him. I don't see the problem.

Here is why I think the boot button would be abused: it is a blatant tool for a griefer, decent folks don't need it. Grief player makes a cow game, and tosses folks out at a whim. I see that being a way to taunt or abuse new players, or as a way to block folks from public games who are ladder running in large games.

The 'vote off the island' idea has some merit in large games. If everyone else in a game wants someone gone . . . OK, I can see it, but even that could be abused to where perfectly nice folks who aren't going to bother anyone get tossed out of a game . . . for no good reason.

Nope, I do not see that feature being useful more than abusable.

and the design feature that was intended: you have to watch your back in some games.&nbsp; The problem is, not everyone is interested in this "feature". .

One option is of course Private games and, to a certain extent, level limits.

Again, I am not going to get into the why Blizzard put this feature in, that horse is long since glue. What I want to discuss is: Given this feature, what can be done to better balance out the desires of the varied playing audience to whom Blizzard caters? As I told Sirian, I accept it as part of the RoE, I have learned how to deal with arseholes, and so long as Blizz closes the loopholes and makes it so cheats can not sneak back in. (remember town kill?) A timer allows me to work the system just fine. PK's are rarely folks who bother me for very long: they are simply a feature of public games, as annyoing as MSLEB's. Do I like them? No, I think they are pricks. I adapt and adjust for the environment. It is the cheats and loopholes that make their presnce untenable, not their existence. Do I wish they weren't such pricks?

Of course, but I can wish in one hand, crap in the other, and guarantee you which hand will fill up first. :D

[Kasreyn]

Hiyaz Occhi, thanks for the reply. ^_^

Kas, it is a game design feature: End of sentence, for better or worse.

Definitely worse. =( It still annoys me that Blizzard has this industry-wide reputation for being responsive to their fans, just because of Bnet and patches, when they more or less openly support grief players.

Here is why I think the boot button would be abused: it is a blatant tool for a griefer, decent folks don't need it.

Huh? You just now said without Hostile good folks would have no way to get rid of lamers like the Pally converting everything, or people setting up stairtraps. Of COURSE there would be! Kick/ban. I think, with the sort of scum infesting Bnet, it's decent folks who need kick/ban capability more than anyone else! And I still think if it's limited to use while in town, perhaps after a time limit after reaching town, it might curb the worst of drop stealing from banning (though it could still be done with an accomplice to watch for drops). What would be cool would be a kick/ban feature that can relay a whisper to the recipient at the same time informing him WHY he was kicked/banned. It might appear like so:

You have entered CHANNELNAME
You have been kicked from MAD MAD COWS HAHAHA NO BEGGARS by MadCowCaptain12; you may re-enter in two minutes.
'dude I said no beggars!'

The idea here is the division between "wild" and "coop" games. Each has a method of lamer eviction available. Hostile in the first one, and ban in the second. Think of wild games as survival of the fittest and most skilled. Someone bugging you? Eject him by force, if he's still around after the 10 second timer. Can't beat him? Go elsewhere. It would be the game of choice for the ruthless and competetive.

Not interested in having to put up with the garbage of someone with twice your combat effectiveness? Find a game creator you trust, and join his game in Coop. This is more of a social type of game. It requires trust in a kind of "government" - the game creator. If the "government" is abusive, people will emigrate to other games. If a game creator is fair and even-handed in applying the kick/ban, he'll gather a playing group around him who'll be able to coop enjoyably together, and be able to take the risk of letting strangers into their games to inject new variety without the fear of griefers ruining it.

Maybe I'm just an idealist, but it seems like a good solution to me. And among the LLers, surely we have material for 30 to 50 good, responsible coop game moderators. Someone could even start a website tracking reports of moderator abuse; players could post their account names and others who've been in their games could rate them on their fairness. Cockamamie idea, maybe, but I hope it gets people thinking.

Of course, it's all moot since Blizzard has always been too arrogant and self-important to take anyone else's advice about game design, even when it's clearly better than their own ideas. =P

-Kasreyn

[Archon_Wing]

I personally object to a ban/kick system. I see the potential for abuse even more. This is because the system is incredibly arbitary. And when people can exploit something, they will. Put a delay on the kick? Someone will wait for a long battle with a boss monsters and then activate the kick beforehand. You will have no way to stop that.

[Kasreyn]

I meant, playerA is game creator, playerA ports to town. 10 second timer. PlayerA kicks playerB to steal drop, but playerB has already grabbed it during the timer.

The actual kick/ban occurs instantly when the button is clicked. It's just that you have to go to town and wait 10 seconds before you can activate it.

And, again, if people abuse kick, they'll be avoided. If they abuse ban, they'll quite obviously wind up alone - everyone will be banned!

Frankly, most of the freewheeling, "I just wanna play in some fast levelling pubbies" folks will play in Wild games. The coop-minded will get together with friends for coop games, and kick/ban would be reserved for random assholes who wander in.

-Kasreyn