A Debate on Friendly Fire

[Dahmer]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Friendly fire is a rather stupid name for it, what part of killing someone just for your amusement is friendly?

Either way I vote no.

 

[Turnip]

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.

I dont enjoy pking or pvping in arpg but I do enjoy playing war games like battlefield, dropping bombs and nades around my allies while shooting between my allies heads. However a game like diablo would be too hard you are saying, especially with such harsh death penaltys as loss of gold... I can understand you guys simply stating that it doesnt appeal to you but maybe you should make it sound a bit less like a characteristic of human nature not to enjoy a bit of added challenge it may bring.

Maybe a name like carebear is fitting to the d3 crowd, I imagine you guys all stopped at softcore too huh. No real desire for challenging gameplay or anything different, you just want your rewards for grinding.

 

[Razor Spine]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

...............

When there are no challenges to be had in a game, you make your own, genius. In any case, modern gaming is dead. Back in the day, even the 2D platformers were an endless enough source of frustration. Now, everything has to be pointed out in small print for the 'gamers' of today.

 

[Dahmer]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

I dont enjoy pking or pvping in arpg but I do enjoy playing war games like battlefield, dropping bombs and nades around my allies while shooting between my allies heads. However a game like diablo would be too hard you are saying, especially with such harsh death penaltys as loss of gold... I can understand you guys simply stating that it doesnt appeal to you but maybe you should make it sound a bit less like a characteristic of human nature not to enjoy a bit of added challenge it may bring.

Maybe a name like carebear is fitting to the d3 crowd, I imagine you guys all stopped at softcore too huh. No real desire for challenging gameplay or anything different, you just want your rewards for grinding.

There's a big difference between challenging and limiting yourself to only use 2 out of 7 skills at least half the time because 5 of them could kill your teammates.

You really can't compare any fps game with rpg games when talking about friendly fire.
In fps games the only thing that does damage to an area are bombs and from my experience they're not used that much compared to rpg games where aoe spells every very useful and used quite a lot.

I used to play unreal tournament with friendly fire on and always wanted it on but I never wanted it in any rpg I ever played. I did have it in one game and after a while all you could think of was frustration for killing teammates while trying to kill the bad guys.

 

[Dolomite]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

I dont enjoy pking or pvping in arpg but I do enjoy playing war games like battlefield, dropping bombs and nades around my allies while shooting between my allies heads. However a game like diablo would be too hard you are saying, especially with such harsh death penaltys as loss of gold... I can understand you guys simply stating that it doesnt appeal to you but maybe you should make it sound a bit less like a characteristic of human nature not to enjoy a bit of added challenge it may bring.

Maybe a name like carebear is fitting to the d3 crowd, I imagine you guys all stopped at softcore too huh. No real desire for challenging gameplay or anything different, you just want your rewards for grinding.

Like how you picked a gamestyle that is very different than Diablo then try to apply it. If FF was in D2 or D3 how could you play in a group? Any Melle characters are at the mercy of "I hope my caster is competent/not stupid and will hold back the AoE spells". This would pretty much hold back everybody cause, it would annoy me to NO END that the Sorc/wizard I worked on for all that time would have a bunch of her spells handcuffed since I wouldnt be intrested in accidentally killing off my teammates.

This would lead to eventually if I want to use all my skills with no worries I play by myself....which is NOT why I play Diablo. Now if there was a FF option and the game identifed as such, GREAT cause I would never bother playing that mode and could properly look for games I want.

 

[Dolomite]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Oh to the OP: Are you going to actually hand this essay in for a class? I am curious since it would be intresting to see someone who may not have played the Diablo series critique this. Actually I will talk to my friend and see if she would look this over, I know she was never intrested in Diablo, but she is a gamer and a English professor.

 

[Nizaris]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Oh to the OP: Are you going to actually hand this essay in for a class? I am curious since it would be intresting to see someone who may not have played the Diablo series critique this. Actually I will talk to my friend and see if she would look this over, I know she was never intrested in Diablo, but she is a gamer and a English professor.

Well, it wouldn't hold up to academic scrutiny. There are no source links or bibliography, and there are plenty of assumptions and opinions used without factual evidence.

A lot of the argument is also based on experience, and it would be hard for a person who knows nothing about a game to know if the parameters of the discussion are defined at the very beginning (which would be a LOT of definitions to get the full scope of the issue).

 

[LOLCareBearsLOL]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

That would be cool if I was graded on it lol. But no its just because I am very passionate about this feature and would like to see it implemented. Besides, I didn't go to school for writing nor took any english college. (Which I think should be obvious at the start, it looks very elementary. And I am dyslexic but minor, stupid genes)


Also, FINALLY, Thanks Flux. A GREAT Opposing opinion to the matter. I say opinion loosely as it is a mix of fact and opinion. Yes, AOE makes it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, and yes it does GIMP CASTERS, but the point is ALSO that now these tanks have to be able to withstand both damage from a player's AOE and a MONSTER. Now imagine this same character build was thrown into PVP. So now I have a tank that can just afk during the middle of the match, come back with popcorn and continue fighting.

Now this may or may not be true as I have yet to really play and understand Diablo 3 mechanics, but all of this is based off Diablo 1 and Diablo 2. As Diablo 1 also had very powerful AOE. Including Firewall, Flame Wake/Wall, Fireball, and Nova. Now the mechanics of d1 allowed for more leniency to damaging players, but Diablo 2 changed it and decided to call it Hostile, which is in no way the same because now I can't be partied to the one I am hostiled against.

Also, with this said AOE with FF in d3 will just mean more strategic gameplay as now you can't just have a sorc or anyone come in and just nuke everything all the time, they can only nuke areas where the player is not standing and using other skills to help fight along side melee classes.

Also, I stated this many times, this is an OPTION at game creation and also during the game itself players will have the option to turn off FF. So now your wizards can turn off their FF if they can't stop killing the team but the rest of the team can leave it on to enjoy it. Also, even just 1 player can leave it on and we now have a new game mode called "Don't Kill ME!"


Oh and here is the Final version:

An Essay on Friendly Fire
by A Diablo Fan


Let me first state that I am not a griever and in no way support grieving of any kind, that games are meant to be fun and interactive.



Introduction:

This essay is about the reason why an option should be made available in “Diablo 3” for friendly fire to be enabled. Through out this document I will give: The Pro's and Con's of PK; An understanding of why PK is not the same as grieving players; A suggestion for implementation; The Security of the implementation; Why so many players would enjoy the feature. Also, I will be giving a couple of short stories based off of my past experience with Pkers. I hope that this will provide at least hope that such an option will be implemented as so many ask for it and it will not be disruptive for game play.



The Pro's and Con's of PK

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.


The Con's

Many people found the environment of “Diablo” to hostile for them to enjoy the game. As it is a game and all games are meant for enjoyment, Player Killing is counter-productive to this. Trying to play a fun game with friends turns into a battle for your rights to the game you may have just created when a PK enters. Not only this but trying to achieve status and quests is further limited when you have to worry about another players physically stopping your character from advancing. This type of game play should not be allowed unless the players have agreed upon this before hand.

Most have just wanted to be able to play through a game and enjoy a story line without having to deal with other players who may have already finished and have become bored and restless. As these restless players would often make their way into games of other players, killing their characters, limiting their advancements, and sometimes frustrating the player to the point where he doesn't even want to play the game, giving the game title bad reviews do to bad players. This type of game play should not be allowed ever.

Some players seem to find that the instanced game, with players only allowed to bring 4 players into a game makes it not worthy of PVP. Although this statement can be argued against, many players believe that PVP is better suited for Massive Multiplayer Online(MMO) type games. An MMO environment, according to comments, has a fuller richer environment with factions and meaningful reason for the need of PK and PVP.

Most players only remember PKER's as rude, obnoxious, and even in most cases unfair about the way they did battle. PKERS would search for a player using waypoints(WP) and town portals(TP) to hide back in town and spam profanities after doing away with a Player Character(PC). This type of behavior should never be encouraged.

Some players become so annoyed by PKER's that they are forced to play only offline games or passworded games in order to escape it. No player should be forced to play away from their preference unless it is, in fact, disruptive. No player should have to deal with such players who do not want to follow house rules(rules of the host player). As this type of game play causes frustration.

Most players believe that now without TP's (Diablo 3) they will not be able to run from a PK, if one happened to make its way into their game. Also that leaving isn't an option as a player shouldn't have to leave a game instance he/she created or even helped create with friends. Doing so causes a dramatic slow down in advancement as it causes the player to “re-search” for a new game instance that works for their need without pk influence.


The Pro's

There are not to many Pro's to PK alone but the Pro's of this option are real and great. As even though many would never admit to it, many people liked to PK other players. It was a feature that will be sorely missed.

The first one is about the realism of PK. At anytime when you can make a choice to kill a player or not... That's realism. It adds emotion, surprise, and just plain excitement to the game. To either party, once a PK has committed to you, you can either run away or take up the challenge. Running away often creates a sense of, “Wow, that was close” when you finally escape.

Some players just want the choice to be a bad guy. This is a guilty pleasure that many of us are guilty of. What fun is it saving the world all the time, sometimes you just want to see it burned to the ground. Why do we constantly have to fight on the side of good when we sometimes just want freedom to be bad. Don't you remember being a little boy or girl and playing cops and robbers. You needed both the bad guys and the good guys for the game to be interesting, no one played the game that was just COPS or just ROBBERS, either way you turned it.

In hardcore games, many people didn't like to be PKED, but in fact a lot of people did. They would hunt down PK's and take their ear to someone as a reward. Being a bounty hunter, although, not through regular game play. Also, allowing grievers to be Pked put an end to the grief for my characters. As this is not about bringing back PK, I will first start now to explain my idea on how to fix this whole mess and make both parties happy.



Why PK IS NOT The Same As Grieving

PK, by name, simply means Player Killer. Anyone who participates in any PVP events is forever considered a PK. A PK does not want to make other players quit the game or make their time in the game less enjoyable. On the contrary, they want to add to and enhance the flavor of the game by adding an extra element of difficulty and danger to the game. They very much enjoy playing the game with other players, often far more then players who only play for the PVE elements. In fact, by nature, a PK can only want cooperation; As it takes two to tango, or in this case 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.

So what to do about this? The short answer is remove PK ability so that it doesn't become a problem and put it into a well structured area with rules and boundaries. What is the problem with this though? Is that now the players who so enjoyed the way it was now have to go out of their way to join the area where a structured battle will take place. Oh yeah, that totally sounds like more fun then having a random player come into my game and try to take me out while I am playing but watch him fail miserably as I am far to smart and customized for just this type of thing. A sense of accomplishment comes from defeating someone who assumes they can defeat you with a first initiative attack while you are still busy fighting monsters. So how can we fix this so everyone wins? I have a solution, an option.



A Suggestion for Implementation

I devise that an Option during game instance creation be available to those who wish to use it. This is an option equivalent to the level restrictions that allowed you to choose the limits of your personal game instance. A friendly fire option that is defaulted in the off position but can be turned on during the initial game setup so when the game starts everyone in the game is available to freely turn on or off friendly fire with no alert. As friendly fire will be defaulted in the on position for the rest of the instance you created.

This option will put a big limit on grievers and will only allow the initial game instance creator to decide if he wants this feature allowed or not. Also it will allow people who enjoyed it to return with it in their own games without interfering with anyone else.

Pressing this check box at game creation to allow friendly fire would also change the color of the name to RED so that people know that this game is friendly fire enabled. This option can be set up to be filtered by those who do not want to use the friendly fire feature and will be completely unaffected by it as they simply choose not to enter the game, and leave the option in the default off position which keeps other players from enabling friendly fire, but instead only requests to fight in the arenas if they want to PVP. The next argument that has been raised is security and how it might be vulnerable to exploit, I've already stated its solution.



Security of the Implementation

As hacking is a big problem in gaming, and grieving is as well, we don't want to give hackers the ability to hostile anyone at any point in time and start grieving players. But the solution is already in place.

Because the option can ONLY be turned on at the time of game instance creation, hackers don't stand a chance to turn it on in games that haven't been marked specifically for friendly fire. Providing a safe and easy solution to a problem that plagues many.

Not just is it secure but its safe from accidental or unknowing turning on the option because it defaults in the off position but could also have a confirmation message to tell the player when he has turned on the option. Also even alerting the player they are joining a friendly fire enabled game.



Why This Implementation Would be Fun

I played a lot of “Diablo” and one of my first impressions of the game is that it had a free friendly fire button, something I've never seen in games before. Also, many people want to pvp on their own terms; where they want to duel; and how they want to do it. I know many times I enjoyed being beaten by someone who I didn't know even was going to attack me. This added more to the feeling of this game being dark, twisted, and evil, far more then any monster did alone.


A Short story

STAY AWHILE AND LISTEN...

I was down in the cathedral, alone, me and my Doombringer. I was just clearing the dungeon because I was waiting for a friend to come on so we could level in the caves. Suddenly... a distant sound of phasing could be heard, too fast to be anything but a young sorcerer. As soon as he saw me he started firing off nova blasts like he suddenly short circuited. Too smart and equipped with teleport I quickly advanced around a corner and then set the room he was in ablaze with firewall. (Lucky for me he was in a room with one wall that was a cage and the rest of the room was 3 walls.)

He phased out of the room quickly and began his relentless thundering booms of energy. Too bad for him I was experienced in the art of slaying. I used teleport to quickly dodge his attacks.. watching him as he feebly burn through scrolls in attempt to damage me. Finally once he was finished with that he thought he could raise guardians from the ground to attack me. Luckly again, the guardians cast speed is still to slow. Then once I was able to stop again, I cast as many firewalls as possible out into the room. I lit the room up with level 12 firewalls that burned all the mana in the area. (The spell queue) He couldn't phase out but he managed to get to the corner to not be burned alive by the intense flames.

I walked through the fire as if it were nothing, what with Mana Shield and max fire resist. I just walked over to the sitting cooked duck and flayed him with my Doombringer. That day I gained a loyal friend and companion for the rest of my journey within the town of Tristram and ventured forth into the bowels of hell to defeat diablo once again.


A Diablo 2 Tale

I was so young, little did I know of the dangers outside of the encampment. Wielding my pike, I set forth to defeat the minion's that dwell with in the Den of Evil. Standing just within the gate I stared forth to the blood soaked plains, where even my own sister had fallen. I would avenge her death...

Stepping out, a brutal chill whipped my golden hair, “Only death or reverence awaits me now.” Wandering forward, following the path that had been paved by the sisterhood, the path was becoming overgrown with a creeping vine that seemed to reach out as I walked past. A sudden hiss and whistling of air alerted me to move quickly out of the way, spines the size of daggers flew past nearly ending my journey with an aim targeted at my throat. Planting my feet firmly, I thew my javalin impaling the spiked beast.

“These... These are the demons that have killed my sister? … No, there must be a greater danger still lurking beneath the surface of this foul place."

The stench that seem to flow from the cave was like a toxic miasma.
“This must be it, the Den of Evil.”

I made my way through the caves, slaying the red demons over and over.
“Why won't they just stay dead!”

A floating, flickering light bursted suddenly from the darkness, a fireball burning and illuminating its path, my reflexes allowed me to quickly dodge the incoming attack and I pressed forward to see its source.

Another one of the red demons holding a gnarled staff, chanting and dancing. He lifted his staff and in a burst of ferocity a lumbering beast charged forth as the slain red demons rose from their eternal rest. Running back into the narrow, I planted my feet, steadied my pike, and prepared for my attack. I only had one chance, I needed to make it count. The beast charged just as I expected and with one powerful strike, I pierced the tough hide and broke the poor heart of the giant and my lance. Splinters flew in all directions like a burst of confetti at a celebration in Lut Gholein. Fear was stricken into the crimson children as I hurled my javelins with lightning speed and accuracy, slaying all, even the pesky one with the staff.

After defeating more of these demons and some of the walking dead of past adventurers who were far to weak to survive the corruption, I arrived at the final hollow.

“YOU! WHO ARE YOU?!” I exclaimed to a silhouette standing in the dim shadows.

“Why me? I am death incarnate, a curse to humanity, and the last person you will ever speak to again.” The white haired man spoke with a menacing grin. He carried in one hand a wand and a severed head in the other, his hilt bore a dagger. This... this is who killed Yhestra!

“PREPARE TO MEET THE DEAD, DEMON!” I said as I planted my feet.

Laughing the man spoke, “Oh ho ho, on the contrary my dear, as I already know the dead, for it is you who will be meeting them.” The man waved his wand, the corpses that lie dormant sudden rose with life as others exploded into skeletal bodies. The demons that rose were not the same as the ones I fought earlier, these ones were even more soulless than those.




I summoned all my strength and asked for the help of the gods... they replied. A bright flash of light tore through the darkness, a Valkyrie sent to fight at my side.

“Your not the only one who can summon help from the other side, Demon.” I threw my javelin at the man but a revived lumbering beast moved into the way, receiving the spear into his chest without any sense of pain or harm.

After the resurrected demon's were slain the Valkyrie disappeared into the abyss. Only the man was left.

“You think because you have killed my minions that you will defeat me?!” The man charged with his dagger in hand.

“You will pay for the deaths you have caused, YOU WILL PAY FOR THE LIFE OF YHESTRA WITH YOUR OWN!” I planted my feet and readied a small pike I found earlier. The man charged slamming his body onto the pike.

“YOU WILL DIE!” He raised his dagger and in a flash landed it into my shoulder and through my neck. A scream of pain escaped me as the dagger burned intensely in my flesh. I could hear the sizzling and popping of my skin and blood as beryl pus foamed from the wound. The man was dead but the intensity of his mark left me silenced forever.


In conclusion, it wouldn't stop me from buying the game if it didn't have the option. But many people would enjoy the game far more greater if it was implemented. Again, I don't believe in grieving but only bringing a feature back as a revised option for the game. Many other player and I would enjoy it and it would cause no harm to other players. Forgive me if I have bad grammar or spelling mistakes as I have been spending days trying to gather information on the subject to even see if this would be worth writing. Even more so, as a game I am so passionate about, this is a freedom I'd love to have the option to use.

Also, I am extremely tired...

 

[Turnip]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

I'm kind of rather digging the idea of a whole game mode devoted to it, so its an option like hardcore for extra challenge after you've completed the main game. Also I find the fact that sorcs and other cheapo aoe spells wont work, changes it up a bit where a large aoe spell would only be used in a tad bit rarer circumstance. I doubt people would no longer use them, they'd just be cooler about it.

 

[Zorrah]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Also, FINALLY, Thanks Flux. A GREAT Opposing opinion to the matter. I say opinion loosely as it is a mix of fact and opinion. Yes, AOE makes it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, and yes it does GIMP CASTERS, but the point is ALSO that now these tanks have to be able to withstand both damage from a player's AOE and a MONSTER. Now imagine this same character build was thrown into PVP. So now I have a tank that can just afk during the middle of the match, come back with popcorn and continue fighting.

But wouldn't that mean that the single player if you're a tank be WAY too easy? If you could survive all the mob punishment plus player punishment in multi-player, then, single player mob punishment would be nothing. Or do you not care about the single player game? some of us still do.

 

[Sass]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Long post, but still invalid.

PK = Griefing. The other one you're thinking is PvP. The two are not interchangeable.

 

[LOLCareBearsLOL]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

But wouldn't that mean that the single player if you're a tank be WAY too easy? If you could survive all the mob punishment plus player punishment in multi-player, then, single player mob punishment would be nothing. Or do you not care about the single player game? some of us still do.

You should join knife throwing contests against people, you would be safe because you seem to miss the point.

If you were playing single player you would never make the build that could survive both in the first place as you would never even discover it as you aren't in harms way of other players.

Simply that, if you were playing with other players who were damaging you then you would then find a way to lessen that damage so there for you would, in effect, create a build better suited for the game. I mean its only common sense.

If you were being chased by a vicious dog everyday on your way to school you would effectively become a better runner as opposed to someone who didn't. Then you could take this person who was chased everyday and pit him against someone, who never had to run away from anything in their life, in a race... I dunno about you but I would bet on the guy who was chased everyday.

 

[Sass]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

Of course it's common sense to protect from your allies when forced into being together. You missed the point though, not him. It isn't about who is better at res / defense. It's about the necessity in the first place



Imagine meteor or frozen orb if friendly fire was in D2. No AoE would be feasible--you'd have a constant group of grumpy people. Friendly fire has no place in any Diablo game. It's a terrible feature that will never make it into D3. Why is this still open?

 

[Razor Spine]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

You should join knife throwing contests against people, you would be safe because you seem to miss the point.

If you were playing single player you would never make the build that could survive both in the first place as you would never even discover it as you aren't in harms way of other players.

Simply that, if you were playing with other players who were damaging you then you would then find a way to lessen that damage so there for you would, in effect, create a build better suited for the game. I mean its only common sense.

If you were being chased by a vicious dog everyday on your way to school you would effectively become a better runner as opposed to someone who didn't. Then you could take this person who was chased everyday and pit him against someone, who never had to run away from anything in their life, in a race... I dunno about you but I would bet on the guy who was chased everyday.

And so? Most players don't need a monkey wrench thrown into their playstyles any more than the other person, and glass cannons would appreciate it the least.

As to the dog analogy, it's kind of unfair to expect someone to adjust to SOMEONE ELSE'S perception of how a game is supposed to work out.

It's like trying once again to compare chalk and cheese. The enemies are getting smarter and stronger in D3 as opposed to D2X. They're going to be better-mixed and will have more intelligent tactics to use vs. players. There are already a number of pretty interesting ambushes and tricks used by the enemy in the gameplay revealed so far.

Tanks and AoE experts would pretty much never play with one another for the most part just to save themselves the trouble. As I recall, there were several hundred incidents in D1 Battle.net where a lot of people went ballistic after getting fried by a poorly-aimed fire wall, or charged bolts.

EDIT: @Sass I would say this is a lost cause. It's no good to try and convince someone of the validity of why something is how it is.

Theorycrafting fails again.

 

[LOLCareBearsLOL]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

READ, I hate when you guys bring up something I have already answer a thousand times. Your fears of players not playing together are not applicable as this only applies to those who use the option. NOT for those who don't want anything to do with it as they simply just don't turn the option on (also known as leaving the option off) and WHAT? AMAZING! NO FF!

Also, FINALLY, Thanks Flux. A GREAT Opposing opinion to the matter. I say opinion loosely as it is a mix of fact and opinion. Yes, AOE makes it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, and yes it does GIMP CASTERS, but the point is ALSO that now these tanks have to be able to withstand both damage from a player's AOE and a MONSTER. Now imagine this same character build was thrown into PVP. So now I have a tank that can just afk during the middle of the match, come back with popcorn and continue fighting.

Now this may or may not be true as I have yet to really play and understand Diablo 3 mechanics, but all of this is based off Diablo 1 and Diablo 2. As Diablo 1 also had very powerful AOE. Including Firewall, Flame Wake/Wall, Fireball, and Nova. Now the mechanics of d1 allowed for more leniency to damaging players, but Diablo 2 changed it and decided to call it Hostile, which is in no way the same because now I can't be partied to the one I am hostiled against.

Also, with this said AOE with FF in d3 will just mean more strategic gameplay as now you can't just have a sorc or anyone come in and just nuke everything all the time, they can only nuke areas where the player is not standing and using other skills to help fight along side melee classes.

Also, I stated this many times, this is an OPTION at game creation and also during the game itself players will have the option to turn off FF. So now your wizards can turn off their FF if they can't stop killing the team but the rest of the team can leave it on to enjoy it. Also, even just 1 player can leave it on and we now have a new game mode called "Don't Kill ME!"


Oh and here is the Final version:

 

[Sass]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

I've already read your posts. Read mine.


Not only in this application, but the others too: "optional" is an illusion. Players who don't want to be killed off randomly won't let the griefers do it, and the griefers will have to grief masochists.

You're adding this highly delusional insistence that others would enjoy the chance to die off to a griefer, as if it's some honorable, challenge-accepted mentality. It's so full of garbage the trash man has to make two loads.

 

[Zorrah]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

If you were playing single player you would never make the build that could survive both in the first place as you would never even discover it as you aren't in harms way of other players.

Except if I like the high survivability play style. That would be like saying no one ever played a SS barb or poured excess points in Vit outside of hardcore.

If you were being chased by a vicious dog everyday on your way to school you would effectively become a better runner as opposed to someone who didn't. Then you could take this person who was chased everyday and pit him against someone, who never had to run away from anything in their life, in a race... I dunno about you but I would bet on the guy who was chased everyday.

Unless the guy who wasn't chased every day enjoyed running and practiced and practiced running in his spare time, even the weekends and hollidays where the person being chased wouldn't be chased on account of not going to school. Or if the person being chased got fed up with it and found an alternate rout (ie. got so tired of having to make his build around his wizard friend he said he'd stop playing a friendly fire game).

 

[LOLCareBearsLOL]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

I've already read your posts. Read mine.


Not only in this application, but the others too: "optional" is an illusion. Players who don't want to be killed off randomly won't let the griefers do it, and the griefers will have to grief masochists.

You're adding this highly delusional insistence that others would enjoy the chance to die off to a griefer, as if it's some honorable, challenge-accepted mentality. It's so full of garbage the trash man has to make two loads.

What does this even mean?

Optional is not an illusion, I don't understand how you can't understand that OPTIONAL MEANS THAT ITS AN OPTION.

Here do I have to actually do this? But Alright.. I guess I do...


Instance 1:

Game created with friendly fire enabled..

4 Players in the game start with FF enabled...

During gameplay, FF is too hard for 1 or more players...

Said Players now, DURING GAMEPLAY, Set THIER PERSONAL FF OPTION TO THE OFF POSITION

Players with FF enabled still have the freedom of FF while those who have turned it off cannot damage other players and other players cannot damage him.

End Instance 1...


Instance 2:

Game is created, this time with FF disabled by default...

4 Players in the game have NO OPTION FOR FF and FF IS COMPLETELY DISABLED FOR THE DURATION OF THE GAME.

Player trys and trys to attack other player feebly, NOTHING HAPPENS.

End Instance 2....


If you cannot understand THAT, then you just need to get off the computer, put on a helmet, and call the nurse because your brain is leaking out your ears.

Except if I like the high survivability play style. That would be like saying no one ever played a SS barb or poured excess points in Vit outside of hardcore.



Unless the guy who wasn't chased every day enjoyed running and practiced and practiced running in his spare time, even the weekends and hollidays where the person being chased wouldn't be chased on account of not going to school. Or if the person being chased got fed up with it and found an alternate rout (ie. got so tired of having to make his build around his wizard friend he said he'd stop playing a friendly fire game).

So you take my analogy, bend it to your own ideas, and THEN for a coup de grace, STILL MAKE THE SAME POINT I MADE AND MISSED IT ENTIRELY!

 

[Razor Spine]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

The games made by Blizzard are created to satisfy the needs of the many and not those of the few.

If you want to have free PvP and PK, make your own version of Diablo 3 Median XL.

 

[LOLCareBearsLOL]

Re: A Debate on Friendly Fire

The games made by Blizzard are created to satisfy the needs of the many and not those of the few.

If you want to have free PvP and PK, make your own version of Diablo 3 Median XL.

If the world is really full of people like you I might as well shoot myself now because humanity is doomed.