Okay let me put it this way. Would you rather have them release D4 sooner (1-2 years) with no PvP. Or would you rather have them release it later (3-5 years) with PvP. If they are having issues making it work will they hold up releasing it until they can work out all the bugs, for a feature that many players will never use?
If Iām being completely honest; Iād rather them either delay the game (although i highly doubt it would be 3-5 years just for pvp, unless there was some other glaring issues that was going on, in which a delay would be needed anyway), or to just completely omit pvp from the game and let the playerbase know about the decision (which Iām sure some here would positively be ecstatic about). They already tried releasing pvp later with Diablo 3 brawl and the lack of effort on their part pretty much guaranteed it to be sitting there gathering digital dust.
2 Likes
Whenever I went into the D3 brawl it was a total waste. If I did not one shot them they would one shot me. Man, that was fun. 
1 Like
Thatās why I said that I would rather have no pvp than a poor one like Diablo 3 brawl. I play Diablo for pve and pvp (well mostly DIablo 2 in this case); so losing pvp wouldnāt be that great of an impact for me.
For example, if the developers had stated that they have no plans or intents for implementing pvp, I wouldnāt even be discussing it much here. However since the developers had indeed stated their intent for pvp, then Iāll gladly give out my feedback for it.
1 Like
Iirc - blizzard mentioned something like
you have to design the game for PvP from Day 1.
Soā¦ I hope (for the PvPers) that they do a good job with it.
The Karma system OP mentioned reminds me of Sword Art Online anime.
One scene showed a potential problem with it.
Slightly bad karma person (yellow) tried lure someone (usually green) into an ambush carried out by really bad people (red).
Full opt-in PvP is probably required to prevent griefing of those that donāt want it. Including the SSF HC players. (AFAIK - these people will still run into others in the open world)
You never played diablo2
You never played poeā¦
Indeed. No skills etc should ever be changed due to pvp.
There can be more generic pvp balancing, like all dmg taken from other players is reduced by % etc.
1 Like
Yes. I rather they released D4 sooner without PVP because if I want to PVP, I will play the real PVP game with a proper matchmaking system such as Heroes of the Storm or Overwatch or Heartstone or Starcraft 2 or King of FIghter 14.
2 Likes
Bots could be used to bring balance. Noob gets more powerful bot, whereas powerful player gets weaker bot. Very powerful player doesnt even wanna bring bot.
Its gonna be interesting to see how they make the PVP actually.
The only way to satisfy the majority is with Open World PVP that hinges on an āOpt-Inā modifier. This would allow the strictly PvE players to play right along side the PvP players without incident. As was pointed out with the āonly seeing a certain amount of playersā in a zone, The system can then quickly match your vision of other players with your āOpt-Inā configuration. The ONLY people who would NOT agree with this are those types of players that enjoy griefing of other players plain and simple.
1 Like
Either Opt-In or having pvp zones that pvers have no need to enter (and if they do entered, theyād be warned about the dangers of it) would work imo. Based on the last info we got regarding pvp, it seems Blizzardās going for the latter (pvp zones), as such if thatās set and stone, then Iād hope for:
- Each region would have one pvp zone, so a total of five zones.
- Each pvp zone is of a decent size, approximately the size of Diablo 2 act 1 Blood Moore area
- Each pvp zone is located in an area that pve players would never need to go to or through.
- As in pvp zones arenāt located near key pve areas (such as dungeonās entrances, efficient pve farming spots, etc.) nor would key pve areas be located inside a pvp zone.
- Each pvp zone shouldnāt overlap with routes that lead to key pve areas unless there are additional routes that players can take to avoid the pvp zone.
- Entering a pvp zone should notify players via both a sound effect (similar to the hostile sound effect in Diablo 2) and an icon at the upper right that if hovered over would inform players they are in a hostile zone and can be attacked by other players.
- If there are waypoints or any other kind of fast travel methods that lets players reach a pvp zone, they should either instead take players to a path that leads to the pvp zone (so they would still be outside a pvp zone and must walk a bit to reach it), or have the game give players a prompt that requires their confirmation to ensure that players are sure that they want to go to the pvp zone.
In short, the only players who should be in the pvp zone should be those who want to pvp or who donāt mind being attacked by other players. Players, who want to avoid pvp at all cost, should never need to venture through or to a pvp zone for whatever reason. Pvp should be completely optional.
2 Likes
Thank you, best comment today. 
2 Likes
millions and millions 
I think my idea could work. They could keep the progressive nature of Diablo, you get more lvls, better gears, your gems are better, etc. When you enter to a PVP battle, your enemies gets bots/pets if they are weaker than you. Also players with pets/bots lose their reward partly to them.
Quake used bots at least, so game industry has used them before.
They could even offer Head Start for Collector Edition owners, so they can prepare themselves when launch happens and bots army comes.
Question I have about D4 PVP: ranged vs melee. Say, for example, IK HotA Barb vs UE Demon Hunter, as we know and understand how those builds/classes work. How do you make this a fair and balanced contest where player skill is the deciding factor? Do you nerf the ranged character or buff the melee, and by how much?
Or is anyone planning to play melee in D4 PvP SOOL?
Iām quite curious as to why a simple opt-in hostile button wouldnāt suffice.
Then the broken record plays againā¦
āBut any attention given to pvp will be detrimental to MY GAME. The TRUE game(pve). What about MEEEE??!!?!??ā
Emphasis added.
Think d2 hostile flagging, except, players can opt out completely.
Voila. Problem solved.
By giving players the ability to opt out, you give everyone else the right to opt in.
Anywhere.
If weāre talking about a melee build vs a bow archetype class; then I would use a shield (assuming that shields are useful in terms of blocking) and rely on blocking to help protect me while I try to close the distance on my opponent. Similar to a build of my ww barbarian in Diablo 2 when dueling against bow amazons, where Iād equip a shield which helped to block some arrows from her while leaping to get close enough to ww her.
But again, that depends on whether or not shields and blocking are actually useful and viable for multiple classes.
I am really curious to see who will win, IK HoTA Barb vs GoD DH in D4 PVP style. 
Pvp in arpg never worked and will never work, unless the game is turned into moba. End of story.
False. PVP in D2 was great; and D4 should do it the same way. Donāt want griefed? Utilize level restrictions or play in a private gameā¦ Donāt want pkād? go to town when someone hostiles you.
Taking a communist and far-left approach is what made D3 a terrible continuation of the Diablo franchise.
Just let the features exist and let the people decide how they want to use those features.
Bring back 100% free, unrestricted trade.
If Blizzard brings back free trade and the hostile button ill buy D4ā¦ until then PoE is my preferred game that utilizes many qualities that should have been built into D3 but werenāt.
1 Like
Never been. Running out of town for a couple of seconds to oneshot your opponent in no way an entertaining PVP game. It seems like you never played REAL pvp games, where PVP is really interesting and challenging.
2 Likes