Will D3X #2 Feature Arena PVP?

Will D3Y include robust Arena combat as a launch feature?

  • Yes, and all will be glorious.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Not at launch, but it'll be patched in post-release.

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • No, we'll never see a real Arena combat in D3.

    Votes: 11 78.6%

  • Total voters
    14

Flux

Administrator
Thinking about the D3Y today, which seems likely to be announced at Blizzcon this year, and I wondered if we'd finally get Arena Deathmatch PvP? It was in D3 during development and playable demos at 2010 and 2011, which were amazingly fun. But all we've had in the live game is Brawling, which no one cares about.

So, will we see a full featured Arena deathmatch thing as one of the core features of the next D3 expansion? Is that why they didn't add it into the game already, so it could be a selling point for the expansion?

Or has the whole thing been delayed and cancelled forever? I wonder if we can blame Blizzard DotA for it? Perhaps back in 2011 Bliz decided that a robust D3 arena mode, with team-based combat and pre-made chars to create skill-based combat (rather than best gear always wins) would be too close in theme to their DotA game?

It was so glorious!
http://www.diablowiki.net/Arena

 
Last edited:

Mage Slayer

Diabloii.Net Member
Given how much of an uproar its removal caused, I'd think if we were ever getting it back, we'd have it by now. They may have wanted it as a selling point for an expansion, but that could just as easily been D3X as D3Y. I suspect we'll get more competitive elements, but more in the vein of Greater Rifts than true PvP.
 

yovargas

Diabloii.Net Member
As Mage said, if they had any intentions of adding it, I think we'd have it by now. I think this ship has sailed, sadly.
 

yovargas

Diabloii.Net Member
What I can never understand is why they don't just make optional open-world dueling. What possible reason could there be to not allow that??
 

Malaterre

Diabloii.Net Member
I do not think we will have any kind of serious PvP because of they are developping their MOBA and this is probably their priority in terms of PvP/e-sport. As SC2 and RTSs become less popular than MOBAs, they need other games if they want to remain an important player in the e-sport scene. Also, I think they are trying to diversify their activities and to cater to other people than their traditionnal PC players fan base. Hearthstone is an exemple of that (F2P, pad...).

Anyway, I should say that I also do not see the interest of a PvP part in D3. With premade characters, it would be very similar to a MOBA (but with a simpler gameplay, less characters...). Without premade characters, it seems too difficult to equilibrate with all the different equipments and so on. Overall I do not see the interest: when I want to play a PvP game, I play a game that is designed around PvP (MOBA, FPS, RTS, some MMO...). Adding some "small" PvP modes to Diablo would be possible but I do not think it could be more than just a way to have fun for a little while (like the brawler system).
 

Flux

Administrator
I don't like the idea of pre-made characters. It's kinda silly.
Apparently the d3 devs agree with you, or we'd have had awesome pvp death match arcade style play for the past 2.5 years.

I don't say that should be the only type of pvp, and I'd like people to be able to use their own chars as well in proper arenas with team mode and ladders and scoring and such. But that style seems impossible to balance over such a huge array of gear, and it presents a huge barrier to entry for any casual player. Since without a totally PvP optimized char you'll get massacred.

Having arcade style characters to choose from would remove all the gear imbalance issues, as everyone could choose the same chars Thus it becomes up to playing skill, not gear-building, and while there would obviously be balance issues between classes and team structure, if everyone can pick the strongest char, then at least it's even. And the devs could make tweaks to buff or nerf the gear or skills on those pvp chars as required to promote more choice and diversity. All without ever touching or impacting on the PvE game.


None of that stopped PvP from being a popular activity in D2.
Which is something of a mystery, in retrospect. I never enjoyed D2 pvp since I played only HC, and since people I knew who did pvp in SC had to spend so much time and effort to customize their chars for it, since it was all about special pvp-valued items or styles. And you'd build entirely to take on one type of char/build, with 200% cold res or whatever.

This in a game with zero pvp support or balance or rankings or ladders, etc. D2's long lasting popularity, despite going years between patches and having huge imbalances and bugs... is inexplicable, in retrospect. Or a product of the era. It was before consoles had good online options, and when every "Diablo killer" RPG that came out kind of sucked. The only other RPGs were MMOs that were almost all party-based with much slower and less click-intensive combat systems, and the only big PvP games on the PC were RTS games, or else FPS like Quake and Doom in the days before those games had any char customization.

So people who wanted a good action game with some atmosphere and depth of char building and equipment game really had D2 and nothing else. People would constantly play D2 for 6 or 8 months, get sick of it, go play other games for a few months, and come back to D2 since nothing else on the market gave them what they wanted. Today there are a ton of other games with much more similar play styles and feature sets. Would people have done D2 pvp if they'd League of Legends? Compare D3 brawling for your answer.
 

yovargas

Diabloii.Net Member
I have very little doubt that if they had allowed D2-style open world PvP at release, it would've been a very active and popular part of D3's fanbase.
 

Fizoo

Diabloii.Net Member
D2's long lasting popularity, despite going years between patches and having huge imbalances and bugs... is inexplicable, in retrospect.
I've explained my theory for D2's popularity quite a few times.

I think everyone, even Blizzard, is missing the entire point about why D2 is so popular.

D2 is a good game. A very good game. But, there are plenty of good games out there. In the past year I got into Civilization 5 for a while and I had a great time. Its a very good game. In the universe of ARPGs, I got into Torchlight 2 and I had a blast. I think TL2 is a very good game.

But I put all those games down and go back to D2 every time. And I know exactly why.

Battle.net 1.0!

BNET 1.0 is a FANTASTIC tool to meet people, organize, and play with others. Its a great social tool. It blows away battlenet 2.0. Civ 5 is very fun, but there's really no social activity with it. TL2 didn't even have realms, and multiplayer wasn't robust.

I remember in the late 90s - early 2000s, Battle.net 1.0 was an INTERNET DESTINATION for gamers. What people would do is come home, log onto the internet, and then log onto battle.net. Everyone congregated on battle.net! And you talked in channel and had fun, and then oh by the way since were all here, let's hop into a game of starcraft or D2. Battle.net 1.0 FUELS activity.

If Torchlight 2 was on battle.net 1.0, I'd probably play Torchlight 2. But its not. Its off isolated with really no robust social tools.

Battle.net 2.0 is absolutely horrible and its killing D3 and it hurts SC2 as well. They need to scrap it entirely and start over. There's no robust social tools for people to get together.

I really don't blame Jay Wilson for what happened to D3. I blame BNET 2.0. I think with any game, if players are isolated, they play for a bit and then leave and never come back, which happened to Civ 5, TL2, and D3.

What keeps players playing is social interaction. What keeps them playing is seeing old friends playing online and playing with them.

I have the same rant about World of Warcraft. To me, what made WoW so incredibly popular was the robust social tools in the game. You had to be social and make friends just to run 5 mans early on, and that reinforced personal bonds and kept you logging in. When you look at the WoW subscription base chart, it keeps rising from the time vanilla opens up to about late Burning Crusade, and then it breaks its ascent and begins levelling off. To me, it makes perfect sense WHY it broke its ascent in late BC, because THAT was when they starting ripping out the social tools. They removed global LFG. Global LFG was fantastic for alts because you could level an alt and stay connected and chatting with your realm. Once removed, levelling an alt was 1000x more painful because you had no one to talk to. Later, they implemented dungeon finder and LFR (raid finder). Those were HORRIBLE decisions because they were antisocial tools. If gamers aren't FORCED to form personal bonds and make friends in game to run a 5 man, if they can just enter a queue and run it, they are less likely to form personal bonds. And that makes it a LOT easier to just walk away from the game and unsub.

To sum up:

D2 has great social tools on BNET 1.0, and that is keeping it active and thrilling 14 years after release.
D3 has awful social tools, and that makes it easy to walk away and quit because you don't make friends in game.
WoW used to have great social requirements until late BC - early Wrath when they implemented antisocial tools and killed global chat. Those two events make it less likely to make friends in game and that makes it easier to unsub and quit.

I think Blizzard actually doesn't understand the gaming industry. What's most important is robust social tools to get people to form in-game bonds. Those bonds keep people logging in. The game is important and it needs to be good but a lot of companies make good games so its almost secondary. What gaming companies repeatedly FAIL to do is make quality social tools.

Looking back, Blizzard seemed to have stumbled upon the formula for success by accident - TWICE! - and had no idea what it had. They hit the jackpot with BNET 1.0 and ignored it. Then they hit another jackpot with the social requirements of early WoW and ignored it again!

If I were to sit down and make a video game, the first question I would need to answer is "how can we encourage people / make it a requirement to form personal bonds and in-game friendships?" That's the key. Because if you get people to do that, you make it painful for players to quit your game. Painful because they have to lose friends. I don't see Blizzard focusing on this question.
 
Last edited:

Fizoo

Diabloii.Net Member
I have said from day 1 that the single most important problem that Blizz needs to fix is BNET 2.0. And its still, by FAR, the biggest problem. I like the direction D3 is going in development. I think rifts and leaderboards and ladders are great. It'll be a very good game. The programmers of D3 did their job and did it well. Its the people building BNET 2.0 that are dropping the ball here.
 

Flux

Administrator
I think that like D2 itself, the popularity of early Bnet was largely a product of the era and lack of competition.

I used bnet for chat a ton in the D1 days, and in D2 as well (though less than for D1), and I also used mIRC for our old Diabloii.net chat channel. And any side by side comparison put Bnet in a very poor light. Eerly bnet chat had a tiny chat window with no resize options, no way to do private chats in a separate window, no chat logs, no friends lists, no moderation tools (eventually D2 added some in private channels), terrible muting and ignore and private message options, etc. D1/D2's chat (and SC1, as I recall) was basically the world's worst IRC client.. But since it was integrated into a really fun and popular video game, it was used widely.

What were the options?

No games had live voice chat then, and hardly anyone even had a headset or broadband to make it useful. Lots of people didn't even have IM clients back then! I remember getting into ICQ and being astonished by the technology when it was brand new, after some D1 chat friends recommended it to me. That was years before things like mumble channels and skype and google+, etc. There were some IRC gaming channels, but you had to be really into the tech to know how to use an IRC client and find them. There were hardly any gaming forums, Reddit didn't exist yet, B.net's own forums were primitive and unmoderated, etc.There were just generally far fewer ways to communicate about video games, much less live built into the game itself. So people used B.net 1.0, even though it had terrible tech, mostly since it was integrated into popular video games.
 

Flux

Administrator
There's also an argument to be had about modern games making it too easy to match up and play. All that instant right click to invite to party/create game, auto-matchmaking so all players ever type in a game is GG when someone exits, D3-style auto-joining by quest or game type... it's easy, but it makes is so you never need to talk. So people never do. So they don't make friends or social connections. So the only reason to be online is to play the game, and if you aren't thrilled to play you don't bother.

As Fizoo mentioned about WoW, every MMORPG back in the day existed years longer than it would have on merit, just since people made friends playing and wanted to hang out so they kept playing even when the game wasn't a thrill. Does anyone keep playing D3 because they want to talk to their friends who are playing?
 

Flux

Administrator
I think there needs to be an anonymous mode for games like D3 that require online. Since as Ivan says, sometimes you just want to relax and play solo, or do your own thing, and not socialize. And if all the friends lists and clan stuff is always on, good luck with that.

My D3 account now is clan leader of IncHC on US and EU, and while the members were pretty cool and it was great to be in a busy clan with always games open to join, early in RoS I spent as much or more time replying to member questions or requests, or searching the member roster for people who had gone inactive and could be kicked to free up a member slot... as I did playing.
 

Fizoo

Diabloii.Net Member
I think that like D2 itself, the popularity of early Bnet was largely a product of the era and lack of competition.

I used bnet for chat a ton in the D1 days, and in D2 as well (though less than for D1), and I also used mIRC for our old Diabloii.net chat channel. And any side by side comparison put Bnet in a very poor light. Eerly bnet chat had a tiny chat window with no resize options, no way to do private chats in a separate window, no chat logs, no friends lists, no moderation tools (eventually D2 added some in private channels), terrible muting and ignore and private message options, etc. D1/D2's chat (and SC1, as I recall) was basically the world's worst IRC client.. But since it was integrated into a really fun and popular video game, it was used widely.

What were the options?

No games had live voice chat then, and hardly anyone even had a headset or broadband to make it useful. Lots of people didn't even have IM clients back then! I remember getting into ICQ and being astonished by the technology when it was brand new, after some D1 chat friends recommended it to me. That was years before things like mumble channels and skype and google+, etc. There were some IRC gaming channels, but you had to be really into the tech to know how to use an IRC client and find them. There were hardly any gaming forums, Reddit didn't exist yet, B.net's own forums were primitive and unmoderated, etc.There were just generally far fewer ways to communicate about video games, much less live built into the game itself. So people used B.net 1.0, even though it had terrible tech, mostly since it was integrated into popular video games.
What makes BNET 1.0 work so well is more than just the chat, altho if you hang out in the amazon basin bnet 1.0 chat channel, you'll see lots of people in there talking and being friendly.


BNET 1.0 offers:

1. chat channels
2. named games which help people advertise and communicate.
2a. trist games for people to group up and run trist.
2b. walk games
2c. tomb games
2d. cow games
2e. enchant games
2f. baal games
2g rush games
2h bump request games
2i. trade games
2j. free itams games
2k. pvp games
3. descrips in the named games which help people trade
4. min level games to lock out bots
5. passworded games
6. integrated ladder
7. player info when you click them
8. friends list

These things facilitate communication, bonding, and a general atmosphere of a social game.

You are rewarded in-game for cooperating. Running trist or tombs cooperatively helps a lot of people level up.

Sure, there are a lot of features they could add to make the experience better and encourage more communication. But the reality is, BNET 1.0 actually offers a LOT of social tools when you think about it. BNET 2.0 went utterly backwards with its social tools.
 

mr punk

Diabloii.Net Member
One other strike against it: if anyone's been following the HotS development, they know how rife with conflict and problems it is. The latest content patch was actually reverted in nearly its entirety due to outcry, which means that the dev and design teams probably lost all that time and effort on something that's now scrapped and unlikely to make it back into the game in any similar iteration. I don't think the D3 team is large enough or hearty enough to really deal with that sort of headache, so that's another strike against organized PvP in D3.
Which, eh. I used to want crazy-fun (but completely non-seriosu) PvP in D3, but now I don't really care as much.
i agree. blizz mistake with PvP and AH is they tried to micromanage players by turning them both into mini-game modes like it was GTA5 or something. the BN team had it right in the first place. pvp or trading was just an option they added to give additional flavor to the game and didn't find it necessary to blow it up into some dedicated death match arena or AH.

was it balanced? hell,no. again, they were not trying to be the LoL, SC or GW of their day. the souls series pvp has never been balanced to the nth degree like some eh-sport and pvp players cry rivers of salty tears like they're d3 players. yet, it doesn't seem to stop the popularity of invading, dueling, hosting fight clubs, etc.
 

Fizoo

Diabloii.Net Member
I think there needs to be an anonymous mode for games like D3 that require online. Since as Ivan says, sometimes you just want to relax and play solo, or do your own thing, and not socialize. And if all the friends lists and clan stuff is always on, good luck with that.

My D3 account now is clan leader of IncHC on US and EU, and while the members were pretty cool and it was great to be in a busy clan with always games open to join, early in RoS I spent as much or more time replying to member questions or requests, or searching the member roster for people who had gone inactive and could be kicked to free up a member slot... as I did playing.
Yah I used to run the top PvP guild on my WoW server back 10 years ago. I spent as much time recruiting, organizing, and farming mats for potions as I did playing. I was more or less a field general directing the troops in battle, which was really an interesting way things developed. I didn't expect that.

I remember I started out in 5v5 arena later and it was actually far far simpler. I organized the team and assigned tasks and we just smashed opponents. But I didn't stick with that too long and got into twink PvP because it was more interesting.
 
Top