Un-PKable

[ZatarRufus]

Would it be possible for Blizzard to create an option whereby starting a new character not only had the choice of softcore or hard, but also a button which would not allow any other player to hostile them?

[moget?]

Hi,

Interesting idea indeed, but I must admit that this might take some fun out of the game. Sometimes I like to live dangerously, and even being hunted down by some raving lunatics can have its thrills. As for hardcore, this option would certainly be a good idea.

Unfortunately, if this is a one time option, you would never be able to get pk-able again. This may not seem like a bad thing, but what if your character reaches level 99 (or so) and wants to test his/her mettle against commensurate foes? Indeed a system like this could be implemented as something you could enable/disable on command, but might be exploited by malicious players. An interesting alternative would be a dialog that pops up while you are joining a game, asking if you come with intent of amity or enmity. This type of system could work well in that evil people would not be able to sneak up and pk you, unless you were pk-activated. If one wanted to "take a fight outside," they could simply rejoin the game under hostile accord. ;)

I'm sure all of this is quite possible, but alas, I am almost positive that it will never be implemented. :unsure:

[adeyke]

They've heard that suggestion before, a long time ago. They chose to ignore it. They really have no intention of adding an option like that.

[Assur]

Hi

Blizz refused to act on suggestions for such an idea after 1.00 came out. It was also suggested that you could choose the option of non-PK when you create a open public game, Blizz also nixed that suggestion.

Having been PKed just last night I personally don't get why Blizz is beeing so obdurate in that regard :o

I infinitely prefer NOT being Pked to not being able to teach an ignorant twerp some manners!

good hunting

[Nystul]

Blizz refused to act on suggestions for such an idea after 1.00 came out.

More accurately, they refused to act on such suggestions long before 1.00 came out. More accurately still, they received a wildly varying range of suggestions on what to do regarding PvP long before the beta tests, and they chose to implement the things which they thought would be best and to not implement everything else.

Just be glad they didn't act on my Friendly Fire suggestions, or players wouldn't need to declare hostilities to kill you! (I still find this notion of a "hostile switch" laughable, even moreso after playing games like RTCW and seeing how much depth FF adds to the game.)

[Guest]

...even moreso after playing games like RTCW and seeing how much depth FF adds to the game.

You can't add depth to a game which doesn't have any.

If the game was marginally balanced in some way, that would be a good idea. But when the amount of attack power ranges in 100x in one class vs another . . . just think of it as if everyone you fight has BFG/Nuke/etc in their hand.


PvP like HC is nothing more than a switch, nothing more was added to it. Oh oh - a percentage damage reduction, woopie! Then because of exploits around mainly that switch Blizz had to bother some more with it, that's all.

[Nystul]

You can't add depth to a game which doesn't have any.

As a general rule this seems completely wrong, but it does apply to Diablo II.

If the game was marginally balanced in some way, that would be a good idea.

Touche! The next time I offer suggestions early in a game's development, I'll start by suggesting that the game be deep and balanced ;) But honestly, having players/mercenaries/minions all be immune to each other (until flipping the magical switch lets them duke it out in all their unbalanced glory) does very little to compensate for these balance problems. That is akin to fixing a flat tire by flattening the wheel. Fortunately Diablo II can still be lots of (Pokemonesque) fun without ever driving down that road.

[Nastie_Bowie]

I read somewhere that Bliz does not want to alienate the players that enjoy PKing.

Hence our wonderful world.

I'm all for a PvP button in the create game screen.

But, what do I know. I'm just a redneck old fart! :D

[Selby]

PK switches do nothing to combat the ways that a player will grief you. If they can't kill you, they will find another way to ruin your day.

I personally dislike restrictions on what I can and can't do in a game. I believe it takes care to not kill your partners rather than just spamming spells all over the screen and hoping for more dead monsters.

[kandrathe]

If it is a huge concern focus on building a char with huge amounts of life, defense, damage reduction, and a thorns aura. Or, play basin games with people who have learned the importance of fair play and sharing, rather than in the mud pit of pubbie games. If you walk into a run down bar in the bad part of town, you can expect that sometimes bad things will happen there.

[SwissMercenary]

Well, I suppose that if you manage to get more life then a PKer, and over 1000% on your thorns, they could die before you do.

The only problem is, I doubt such a character would be playing the game in PvM mode...

It would save you time to just leave the game, and start a new one. If you really want to get a Pker, a better suggestion would be to make a pvp character yourself... And, I'll say this: They take quite some thought, and equipment to make.

In short: Don't bother. Ignore the PKers, and play private games. Or, bring a bigger set of teeth then they have...

[Casperi]

I'm all for a PvP button in the create game screen.

Agreed, the hostile option should be on creating a game, not the characters. But, as stated above, it's not going to happen.

[JustAGuy]

Agreed, the hostile option should be on creating a game, not the characters. But, as stated above, it's not going to happen.

Since grief players will cause you to die in ways other than just by their sword/magic/minions, how about adding a voting feature along with the hostile on/off pre-game switch? That way, if griefers in your game are identified, just call a vote, and kick the bugger.

Ah, another seemingly good feature that won't ever be implemented because it's exploitable and/or "not worth the time" to implement it.

[Selby]

Just play in private games. That is the only way to avoid the griefers. All the switches and voting systems in the world won't stop them.

Selby

[JustAGuy]

I totally agree with you. That's why I actually only ever play in private games. There's good fun to be had when playing with friends only (especially those friends you know in real-life), but those poor souls without a real-life friend to share Diablo with are left out in the cold when it comes to getting the benefits of more players in a game (drops, difficulty, Diablo Clone). The aforementioned switches and voting systems would offer at least a tiny bit of solace to those incapable of playing in private games.

Blizzard just seems to have a hard-on for allowing that PK type of PvP. If they did disallow hostility in games by a switch, a chunk of people would stop playing Diablo all together. But, when you think about the people that would would leave, is that really such a bad thing? I have a hunch that some of the development team that worked on Diablo 2 were that type of player...

I don't know if I would have made some of the design decisions that they made with regards to PvP if I were designing Diablo 2, but then again, I don't develop games. I develop commercial software that people won't ever have anywhere near this amount passion for. With that said, the PvP decisions aside, Blizzard must have done something right, eh?

[whereagles]

The problem is as follows:

1. If a character cannot hostilize another, he has to put up with annoying leeches following him and stealing drops.

2. If a character can hostilize/be hostilized by anyone else, he can be killed by annoying pks following him :D

These solutions are mutually incompatible, so you either take one or the other.

Blizzard decided for 1, on grounds that it gives you the freedom to play the way you like, and to be able to enforce your rights (e.g. your drops lol.)

If Blizzard had taken 2, every forum thread with "PK" on its title would simply be replaced by one with "LEECHES" in the title. No big difference.

I prefer 1 as well. Trust me, if you were playing under option 2 you'd be begging for 1 to be implemented.

[Nystul]

When it comes to grief players in a small-scale multiplayer game, which is what I consider Diablo II (how often do people close coop in groups of 8?), the ideal solution is the one that Blizzard provided: offer the ability to set up password protected games. Nobody gives Blizz any credit for this because it is so obvious. But honestly this is the best way to avoid grief players on a game of this type.

Having kick votes would be nice, but in D2 where the game is usually a small number of people it would be A) hard to actually kick griefers in many cases and/or B) potentially easy for the griefers to abuse themselves.

All other stuff that can be done to discourage specific types of grief play are just bandaids. I think these things are good ideas, as long as they don't have detrimental side effects on the game itself. Being able to filter out messages from a specific player, for instance, is a good bandaid to limit grief play with really no downside. Being invulnerable to other players in the game is a much more questionable feature.

[dkass]

The problem is as follows:

1. If a character cannot hostilize another, he has to put up with annoying leeches following him and stealing drops.

I doubt this would really be a problem. If someone is leaching (experience, drops, quests or what not), they are usually in an area beyond their abilities (otherwise its much more efficient for them to be off doing their own killing). It is quite possible to set up situations that will kill such characters (assuming your character isn't also beyond their abilities).

I susupect that instead, waypoint trapping and the like would become more common if hostile weren't possible. So it probably is a catch-22 situation, anyways.

My personal preference would have been if they had completely allowed friendly fire (as in DI) and then balanced the game for it (as in character damage vs monster damage vs character hp vs specialized effects). Then every character would likely be decent at PvP and much grief would be reduced (a reasonable PvM character would be a good PvP one and have plenty of chance to at least survive). I find that DII lacks much of the teamwork and tactical depth of DI because of the lack of friendly fire. For example, targeted, one monster spells don't have a place to shine.

I do recall back before DII came out that someone from Blizzard on a.g.d as much as admitted that several developers enjoyed being grief players (or at least PKing).

[whereagles]

I've had people prowling me and snatching drops on various occasions. I hostiled them and they all left. It doesn't happen every game, but I happens.

[SwissMercenary]

Locks exist to keep honest people honest.

The hardcore griefers would still find ways to grief. The 12 year old who brings his lvl 80 sorc in a lvl 9 game obviously lacks the mental capacity required to kill unhostiled players.

For an analogy, let's say there's a game of BattleField: 1942. Some servers have Friendly Fire on. Some have it off.

On which servers do you see more teamkillers? On the FF on ones.

It's still possible to teamkill, even with friendly fire disabled, but it's harder to do, hence less people do it.