A Debate on Friendly Fire

Hyliangod

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

so say theres a option for pk games and non pk games, in d3 the spells are changed or have CD's added for pvp how would this work in a pk enabled game which is pve?
 

Varquynne

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Low sample still proves that more then .05 are pro option and pk. Meaning if even I did get a larger sample it would still yield similar results. If you were correct then it would only have more near 2 yes and 20 + no. But the facts are facts and numbers, no matter how small, do not lie. But also seeing how this poll has just started, it hasn't been given enough time.

ON THE OTHER HAND, it has given me enough information that this OPTION SHOULD be implemented and that I WILL write an essay no matter how pointless, meaningless, redundant, useless, stupid, or whatever other close-minded words you can come up with.
Okay. If you say so - dozens of votes is *clearly* a representative sample of a user base of over 1 million. My assertion that it isn't is obviously "close-minded and stupid". All votes might as well be done with small samples because they always end up yielding the same results when done on a larger scale. /nod


 
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

I guess I should just quote myself because I've already answered most of these questions about the option and no one has given a sound argument against it but the only one that is true has nothing to do with pvp at all and thats "Blizzard will not do it, period." But thats an opinion which can be changed.


I put no because I've experienced a game that had this option before, and it didn't work out all that well. It divided the community. The game I am speaking of was called Sacred 2 - the game had many flaws beyond this, but I think their game-matching code dissuaded co-operative play, and due to the fact that there were limited servers available, people would join PvP enabled servers simply because there weren't enough servers left for PvE.

Note: I know the issues I mentioned are not entirely connected, but it was an experience that made me certain that there's a better solution
I also played Sacred 2 and I agree, "SACRED 2 SUCKED". Although, your argument has nothing to do with pvp and nothing to do with given players an option. The only thing you said was what I have already said.

"Players are afraid that they will not be able to find non-free-pvp games as they fear that us 'grievers' will be the only ones who are making games."

Your argument should have been said about servers not pvp, so you should have voted you don't care not no, but I won't really tell you what you should do as your opinion is your's but your reason is flawed completely.

And here it is, the Essay, hopefully well written enough, even though this is my first draft and I am extremely tired.
Wait, did I write that? Yeah... I think I did. And anyone with an argument against this should probably read it as you will see that I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST GRIEVING.


Also, thanks for saying my story was epic, because it was a true story. I am sorry not many of you have had the wonderful experiences I did during free-PK, but its also why I am asking for an option that will protect all of you from it but allow ME and people who WANT to BE PKED to have their dream of fighting freely.


Now the best argument that I can actually understand why you would think it is a better option but first of all they should have both. Plus, as I mentioned in the essay, you don't create seperate servers because all games have the option of using it but once the game is created the LAW will be SET IN STONE and cannot be changed. So there for, anyone who DOESN'T want PK at all ever in their game just simply has to turn it on and filter out PK Games.

Also, your afraid that you will only be able to join PK games. Well, I don't understand why, not everyone will be trying to PK you in one of these games as most people will just turn the option on and forget it even there and never PK anyone! The option just changes the difficulty of the game slightly to allow players at any point in time to attack a player unannounced as is more realistic to life. But DON'T WORRY because you will probably never experience a single PK in diablo 3 as long as you don't join or don't create a PK game. Then also, "because the majority want non-pk" most of the games created will be flagged as non-pk and there for only maybe 3-5 games on the list will be PK while the other 220000 are normal games. SO WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO ADAMANTLY AGAINST IT?!

Your fear is unjustified.


Speaking of fear.... I am not afraid to say exactly what I want and I keep saying exactly what I want. The ability to be sneaked up on and killed, because I believe that if a player can defeat me in game then I am not good enough, because monsters on the other hand were MEANT to be be killed so will NEVER be as difficult as a player who can act as a monster, kinda like an UBER boss at any point in the game.

Also, for you who said the skills will be changed. Umm no.. they won't be as PVM skills will be used and work exactly like PVP skills against players because players will be targeted as monsters. Why would they need to change the skills? They don't, this is another illusion. The only reason for the PVP skills is for ARENA ONLY. This makes sense as this is a higher quality form of PVP, it needs more balance and work. Free-PVP is just to increase difficulty for those who want it during PVM, aka "Friendly Fire" so that way when the players use this option they, even if on the same team, now need to work more considerably careful to not kill their team mates or NPCs on accident. It may not sound fun to you, but it sounds like LOADS OF FUN for me and players who are hardcore diablo fans and love the extra element of danger.

Also, why do I have to deal with skill changes during pvp at all. I want the same skills I just had, this isn't guild wars. Also, guild wars pvp was cheating. I don't want a max level character at the beginning, I want to use whatever level I own already.

Again, all your fears against an option are unjustified as they simply do not apply to anyone else but those who want to use it, actually the poll should read. "Do you want an option? Yes, I will be using it, or I don't care because I will not use it"

Most people just have chosen 'NO' because of their own unreasonable paralyzing fear of something they cannot control, which is other people's games.

As we can see through out the history of these messages, its in-fact YOU GUYS (the non-pk) who are the grievers, you guys probably were in peoples games spamming, kill stealing, item picking, getting rushed, muling, xfering, or some other general form of annoyance to other players, and was PKED because of it.
 

MrFrye

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

The ability to be sneaked up on and killed...
And yet...

And anyone with an argument against this should probably read it as you will see that I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST GRIEVING.
We see nothing of the sort. We see that you claim to be against grieving; the problem is we don't believe you. That's why everyone is arguing with you.
 

Nizaris

Clan Officer - US West Hardcore
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

I also played Sacred 2 and I agree, "SACRED 2 SUCKED". Although, your argument has nothing to do with pvp and nothing to do with given players an option. The only thing you said was what I have already said.

"Players are afraid that they will not be able to find non-free-pvp games as they fear that us 'grievers' will be the only ones who are making games."

Your argument should have been said about servers not pvp, so you should have voted you don't care not no, but I won't really tell you what you should do as your opinion is your's but your reason is flawed completely.
Actually, no. You missed my number one point: it divides the community. Pure and simple. No matter what you say, you're not going to get around that fact. I feel no need to explain the reasoning because every other post on the matter has done it for me. The reasons as to why it divides the community is beyond servers (all points of which have already been covered).

I am posting to throw my opinion on the side I am most agreeable to - not to have essay-length explanations. We already know Blizzard's choice, no real point in wasting breath on long-winded analysis.

[EDIT]As another note, if you are to have PvP enabled games, it is directly connected to the problems of servers, as it completely alters some skills. It just won't work with the way Blizzard has decided to implement PvP. Not to mention, I wouldn't want to join a PvP game where you have the world around you but your skills are modified. What would be the point?


 
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

It won't change the skills. I don't know why you assume they will.

Community is already divided so I don't understand your point. The only thing this does is make everyone have to play the same way and not allowing freedoms which games are suppose to be meant for.

Also, the community is already divided in OTHER ways other than just pvp. So I don't understand your point again.

Its my breath to waste and your choice to read this or not.

I just said I am against grieving and I prove that I am in the essay with showing reason to WHY there will not be grieving. Because those who do not want it merely just keep it off so I don't understand your point.

You say all I want to do is grieve games but how does that make sense when:

1- The game will show up clearly marked as a friendly fire enabled game.

2- You will not be forced to join.

3- If you created a game I could not enter it to pk you as friendly fire will not be enable with in.

4- You can filter out friendly fire enabled games so that way you never have to be bothered by them.


So any claims that I merely want to grieve are pointless as you can see grieving is impossible under this aspect. Its an OPTION, NOT a REQUIREMENT.

But you guys seem to want to grieve the players who are merely asking for a compromise so that we can enjoy a game with friendly fire enabled, by refusing it as an option just out of your own unreasonable fear for something that cannot happen.
 

Sass

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Wow...playing victim, preaching to the crowd, ignoring alternatives, assertion of invalidity due to ignorance, AND reversing the accusations back.

You lost all legs to stand on, so just pull fallacies straight from the list eh?
 
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Wow...playing victim, preaching to the crowd, ignoring alternatives, assertion of invalidity due to ignorance, AND reversing the accusations back.

You lost all legs to stand on, so just pull fallacies straight from the list eh?
Lol, no, I am not playing victim, I am just stating facts. Never have I ignored alternatives because I gave explanation to why an alternative isn't even close to being what I am asking for.

Reversing accusations back, of course, because I am proving a point. That they are doing exactly what they hate so much to people who are offering a safe alternative.

Besides I am finished with my essay and will be posting it on the main forum, even if it is shot down it will be worth every effort from me to at least try.

I can't believe that more people, even though my friends here love it too, don't like the idea of an option and I simply cannot understand why when it will not affect your game play in ANY way. It just makes it harder for me and the players who wish to use it. Just like the hardcore is an option that doesn't change gameplay at all, but instead causes the player to just lose his character after death. The server argument can only be made for HC.

I do not want a PC that can ONLY be played in friendly fire enabled games because of the fact that it may not be used often enough and I want to be able to use my character freely among games, including in the arena. But I also want the option to play classic style.


Also proof of your guys bigotries lies in that you reference my name as if I came in here and started trolling about carebears, hell, MAYBE I FREAKING LIKE CAREBEARS ALRIGHT! I USE TO WATCH THE SHOW ALL THE TIME!


 

Sass

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Committing all of them again. Brilliant! This will surely further your oh-so monumental cause.
 
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Committing all of them again. Brilliant! This will surely further your oh-so monumental cause.
All I can do it try to get a feature that I and many others enjoyed implemented in a safer way. Why can't we just have both?


 

Zorrah

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

It won't change the skills. I don't know why you assume they will.
It is indeed because Blizzard said they will be balancing skills differently for PvP so you don't run into one of the WoW failures of screwing your PvE game for PvP balance.
 

Sass

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

All I can do it try to get a feature that I and many others enjoyed implemented in a safer way. Why can't we just have both?
Both is impossible. There's even a fallacy about how compromise isn't the solution to a debate. Then again, it's fallacious to assume one's conclusion is false even if the argument used for it is fallacious. ;) Logic is a funny thing.



Point is, all you get is the ability to go into the new version of the Blood Moor and duel there. PKers can't PK, and the PK'd force their play style on PKers. Open PvP would be nice, but doesn't relate to PKing. The method of implementing open PvP will directly affect PKing, and anything "optional" or "consensual" prevents PK. Only being forced into one or the other can allow any side to get what they want, and that's not a compromise of any kind.


 
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Both is impossible. There's even a fallacy about how compromise isn't the solution to a debate. Then again, it's fallacious to assume one's conclusion is false even if the argument used for it is fallacious. ;) Logic is a funny thing.



Point is, all you get is the ability to go into the new version of the Blood Moor and duel there. PKers can't PK, and the PK'd force their play style on PKers. Open PvP would be nice, but doesn't relate to PKing. The method of implementing open PvP will directly affect PKing, and anything "optional" or "consensual" prevents PK. Only being forced into one or the other can allow any side to get what they want, and that's not a compromise of any kind.

AND as you can see that this argument/debate that has been taking place is flawed because of this word called Semantics.

You and many others have this notion and belief that PK is directly related to grieving when PK literally means Player Killer. This has nothing to do with grieving which is the issue. As Player Killing is allowed in Diablo 3.

So saying that "consensual pvp prevents pk" is like saying that "war prevents death".


 

Sass

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

PK is used because it refers to griefing. PvP is used to distinguish the type of player killing in duels. Yes, it's petty semantics, but words have meanings for a reason. I wouldn't say this board's background is pink because it contains red, and is therefore comparable.


Players are allowed to kill another player. This does not mean they can grief. When "PK" is used, it's a synonym for griefing.


Consensual PvP means both must agree, or no killing happens. The PKer will only be able to kill those who want to afk and die. That isn't griefing, it's just standing there and dying. Some may get a thrill out of that, but who knows? Those who don't want an A-hole to come in and ruin the game won't agree to being killable, so the PKer can't do the K. He's just a regular player now.


At any rate, Blizzard has its stand that the consensual PvP is an arena thing. If you want to die, that's up to you, not Blizzard. If you want to kill, you have to put up with being able to die.
 

Zorrah

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Even so, most people refer to the non consensual PvP as PK. It seems to me, that's the way the lingo has evolved. Technically, killing someone in consensual pvp is Player Killing, since you are killing a player, but PKing as used in most conversations refers to the murder of innocent characters who don't want to, can't be bothered to fight back, or are so PvM built and geared, have a rougher time of it.

It's more of a semantics of Attrition vs murder. In the open PvP thread, there seems to be a lot of assumptions that those wanting open PvP just want to murder lowbies and non PvPers and don't want genuine contests of skill. I'm not going to be one of those that says it's true of all PKers, but there is a good chunk that it is true of, I'm sure.

For those that don't use them interchangeably, they argue that PvPers are the ones that want fair duels and arenas, and PKers want non consensual open PvP. Griefers are another matter entirely as they don't necessarily want to kill other players, just give them a hard time. A griefer doesn't have to be a PKer specifically. Even though PKer and PvPer is technically the same thing, PKer has evolved among those who typically use it to mean something different. Evolution of language and lingo can be a funny thing.
 
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Players are allowed to kill another player. This does not mean they can grief. When "PK" is used, it's a synonym for griefing.
I am sorry that I missed the memo that made those two synonymous but that's also why I have then switched back to the older term which was used in diablo 1 "friendly fire"

I was still using the archaic form of PK which simply meant anyone who killed a player regardless of if it was agreed upon or not.

Also, quoted from my essay I go on to say,

As Player Killing alone harbors no REAL pro's I will just list the Con's of player killing. As this may seem counter-productive for what I am trying to achieve; I want it be known that this is NOT about giving players the ability to grieve other players that many seem to be so concerned with.

...

PK, by name, simply means Player Killer. Anyone who participates in any PVP events is forever considered a PK.

...

PK has become such a derogatory name for someone who simply wants extra competition due to grievers who abused the PK style. Grievers only want to make other players upset or worse, try to make them quit the game. Pkers on the other hand require players to keep playing and even target grievers, these Pks who target grievers are known as PKK or Player Killer Killers. They still love the same aspects of PK as normal Pkers but have found a supply of players that other players are happy to see taken down.

 

Sass

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square.

Pkers grief, but you can grief in other ways than killing.


Same idea, but hopefully understood. Good post Zorrah.
 

treader

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

I am sorry that I missed the memo that made those two synonymous but that's also why I have then switched back to the older term which was used in diablo 1 "friendly fire"

I was still using the archaic form of PK which simply meant anyone who killed a player regardless of if it was agreed upon or not.

Also, quoted from my essay I go on to say,
As I have mentioned in another thread, the reason open pvp has gone down the drain is because of the behaviour of these pkers in the past. Cheating, hacking, TPPK, name calling and all kinds of exploits is abused to the max just so the pkers have the upperhand in killing another player and essentially "grief".

I respect your effort to champion this so called freedom for open and consensual pk but the majority of players have had enough of it. Also we do not know what kinds of exploits might arise if there is a checkbox based friendly fire option when creating games but I rather follow this rule of thumb:

Prevention is better then cure.

Non pk elements in the PVE section of the game will totally prevent any abuse or exploit that might happen or stop majority of it.


 

Flux

Administrator
Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

I almost never post w/o reading a whole thread, but as this horse has so long since been turned to glue that I just skipped to the end.

It's a nonsensical question. It's utterly unworkable. It's not worth a second of debate knowing what we now know about D3.

Imagine FF in D2? It would be akin to saying that you could never play a party game with any sorceress, bowazon, javazon, hammerdin, CE necromancer, or elemental druid, since all of those chars constantly throw off untold amounts of damage from very wide-spread ranged attacks.

Now take that to D3, where the wiz, wd, and dh are all about ranged attacks that can go in every direction, and the Monk and Barb have a wide variety of ranged attacks as well. Unless your goal is for players in the same game to be handcuffed in their skill choices, or for party play to be impossible with anyone on the same screen, FF is out of the question.
 
Top