World PVP toggle and Duel feature D4

General Discussion
61

And you are a so called PvP player that can’t make it in the PvP world and now you want to turn Diablo into a PvP game
If you knew anything at all about Diablo you would know it’s a campaign to rid the world of Diablo and working with the people to destroy the evil
If you had a clue as to what rpg meant and how it is generally played you would know it’s about the campaign
If all you want is PvP what’s the point of calling it Diablo when the game you want to play has nothing to do with Diablo in the first place

How do I know? Simple really, D3 didn’t have PvP, people winged and moaned about no PvP, PvP was put in and you can’t find a PvP game anywhere, after all that wining about PvP and they don’t even use it

Is that why noone is using it in Diablo 3 because it is sooooo popular

62

LOL. What you guys don’t realise is nobody reads YOUR comments.

The explanations are rehashed hate and non sensical reasoning that pretends pvp is going to somehow affect your pve experience.

It literally won’t. I explained myself and how it could work very well and anyone who does read this will see that.

63

Nope. They will see it as low reply thread from a PvP griefer suggesting a decade old approach for a modern game, releasing next year with already detailed PvP systems publicly.
Also for what? Ganking people when they least expect it? Announced system requires you to show skill by scoring a killstreak if you want to target players or bust out on the mayhem of ritual grounds. Randomization in the game isn’t even remotely fair for everyone’s progression and there will be issues about trading wrecking the balance too.

I don’t think it will it make it to monthly reports. :duck:
Your idea only could be valid if they completely scrap the overworld idea or small rewards, but as rumors has it they already running internal testing on the game and it’s allegedly coming next year.

64

See what I mean. Your reasoning is flawed. How will they not expect it when they turned pvp ON. Anyone reading this will see through these lies. The laughable thing is any of you think it’s somehow persuasive when it’s demonstrably provably false.

And all any of you are doing is proving how much of a troll you all are by trying to argue using points that any developer can easily see through.

Literally lmao. Honestly you’re just helping bump the post, they’ll ofc read the OP before any of these troll comments that don’t make sense. And all you did was make it a more popular post. Thanks!

65

Popular posts are gauged on many different statistics, not just replies. A two hundred reply thread can be as well two people bickering back and forth, it doesn’t mean it’s popular.

This is great if anyone activating PvP automatically turn on each other but we already have this in the Grounds of Hatred. If you have to offer PvP to someone from the players in the session individually from a list, this is kind of awkward on top of some builds could exploit range or instant attacks then opt out instaneously to gank someone. You have to put rulesets for this as player keeping the PVP option active is at great disadvantage here.

Also nobody will do that activity when approach is not well thought out. Is the approach open to exploits in a cheesy way or not? Where’s the reward? What’s the point? When you won, you just get a bragging story; when you lost it will cost gold, character death or even experience for you. You need a separated mode for that and I believe they don’t have resources for it after this point.

Unless you find someone actively trading and have merchant friends you can not do that activity. It’s completely outed for someone playing solo mainly and pointless for Hardcore characters unless you’re plenty rich. Their system allure everyone to participate with cosmetic or some exclusive rewards. Your system is an allegory for a game genre with this amount of gear randomization and lack of control.

If you want a good PvP example in isometric ARPGs there’s little to none. As I said, there were a few on top of my head but they weren’t very bright; NoX and Sacred. Both games used diverse mechanics and team play as a way of curbing some randomization but knowing Diablo series, randomization will be atop.

66

Is that why you keep responding with your hate because you aren’t reading my comments, mad because everyone isn’t automatically agreeing with you

67

Bro the only people mad are the ones writing books trying to over convince. When literally everything that has been said has been disproven in the very first post.

I just like replying to people I know are mad that pvp is gonna be huge in D4 when literally they are just mad that other people have fun in the game different to them. It’s literally a troll point of view to be so mad about this and try to pretend it somehow will even affect you while you play. It won’t. And other people just enjoy the game differently to you.

68

It didn’t disprove anything, it actually raised many questions this is why people asking if you are into griefing. You can not attack anyone out of PvP zones with the current system until you score some kills. Why do you want to attack anyone with PvP active, it’s not any balanced to begin with.
On top of that, attacking anyone supposed to be a reward on its own, you want it with a button press. Plus friendly fire will be a concern if you leave it open and forget, retaliation can be swift too. So you want to freely step into the Grounds of Hatred without being harassed or what?

As I read from the OP post the moment you get harassed, you can simply shut it down or you can opt out any moment. Am I reading it wrong? You don’t make sense. How is it not exploitable by range or position advantage? The screen you see with your character in the middle have tons of blind spots and characters can have really long effective ranges, like Rogue or quick-footed summons like Druid. Why do you think it’s not exploitable at vast open grounds?

The reason there are PVP zones that they’ll be designed with such short comings in mind. Melee, ranged and caster archetypes always have an imbalance between each other. In a vast open area, your Barbarian won’t be comfortable to come across a Sorceress with active offense buffs auto aim on him then hope to win the confrontation. Open world PvP can be enjoyable but if only characters had any more sightline than one single screen. Anyone activating their PvP toggle still means it’s tons of work.

69

That’s actually how it works already. Devs announced it in developer interviews.

You can’t be attacked until you attack another hostile player or start a summoning ritual. Probably to appease pve players so they can avoid pvp as much as possible. The moment of the ritual would be the only time you need to pvp.

But let’s entertain the idea that I need to prove any of your points don’t make sense even though I don’t because I have already done so. But for fun I’ll do it anyway.

Point: You say people don’t want non-consensual pvp.
Disprove: Toggling it off is the simple answer to this.

Point: You say D4 will have pvp “everywhere”.
Disprove: Only if you turn it on.

And they can easily make it a feature you can only turn on in town so you can’t just decide to jump someone when you had it turned off. It’s how these systems are always made nowadays. It’s a simple fix that was thought of many years ago pretending you don’t know this exists is again just trying to distort the truth it’s very obvious.

Any issues about dev time or something like this, let’s explore.

When you actually think about what it would take to implement a feature like this, it doesn’t require any assets, any combat design, any maps to be made, any matchmaking rules to be changed potentially, or pvp to be added, pvp exists already.

It’s literally just a feature to allow you to toggle on pvp. So when you do walk past someone how matchmaking is already implemented, you might be able to pvp if you both have it turned on.

Let’s explore any points about Diablo not being a pvp game.

Diablo has had pvp in it since the very first game. It’s been in D1, D2 and D3. It’s also in POE and Lost Ark the most popular ARPGs on the market and currently D4s biggest competition. World of Warcraft and Elden Ring/Dark Souls games are widely considered some of the best fantasy style dungeon crawler rpgs on the market. World pvp exists in wow, 90% of classic server that went up when classic launched were ALL WORLD PVP SERVERS if you don’t remember. Blizzard players love pvp clearly. Invasions are widely considered some of the best pvp experiences in games like this.

All you can do is try to argue that these games don’t have anything to do with D4, but you’d be wrong. Extremely wrong. The only real difference is the camera view and control method.

Anyone reading this that think any of your whiny comments make sense is not a dev or anyone that matters. People who can work things out for themselves can clearly see you’re just trying to make things out to be as they are not, to fit your world view. It’s delusional.

All you’re really mad about which I don’t think you even realise. Is I’m excellent at showing everybody how wrong you are and happy to do it over and over again, and that you’re mad about people enjoying the game in a different way to you.

And I really just like keeping my post at the top of the forums :slight_smile:

70

How is it disproving anything? How wanting something and a button press for a shortcut to a supposed reward (marked for death) is related or any balanced? You’ll blindside people; you have to be marked on the map of everyone as killstreaking player has it too.

Secondly, there are blind spots in the screen for any melee character, ranged or caster classes will have a great advantage against them. This is why everyone trying to participate in PvP has to be marked on everyone’s map. You can opt-in and opt-out before melee character rushes to you as ranged or caster.
Additionally, compared to rituals, open world PvP is a fools errand when there’s no rewards compared to doing a ritual and fighting for it.

Blind spots, position advantage, camping a waypoint somewhere and being defeated by randomization. All still related then?
PvP is restricted in those zones because such shortcomings of balance or imbalance between archetypes can be avoided. No open world PvP means people who like to enjoy PvE won’t get confused, nor blindsided by any one. Nobody gonna have to realize they lacked a crucial affix after getting slain neither forget that PvP was active after a while, nor think it’s imbalanced by getting flanked somewhere in a ditch.

First game only had like 70 or so variables (skills) that can be easily balanced between only 3 classes. PvP in D1 was fine because classes were restricted but game integrity was trash as duped and hexed items were abundant. D2 came with 7 classes and around 300 skill variables with varying break points and skill levels. For balancing it, merchant community had to step in. In D3, we all know the story; it’s not even practical and it’s a one shot fest when you hit for hundred trillions of damage in a single hit yet character toughness is barely at billions.

In D4, there are 5 classes so far with comparable amount of variables to D3 and D2, and they ain’t taking their chances. Balancing all of these skills in every situation and terrain, would be a nightmare.

So? D4 gonna have zoned PvP with rewards instead of something with no rewards. World PvP will be something that you can participate only when you are actively trading yourself. Thinking active traders will be a small fraction of active player base it’s unneeded at best. Open world PvP only apply to those who shown their skill to score a kill streak when odds are not in their favor.

Individual elements of a game design is tied to each other and affect other features. If you want your game to have integrity you play test or consider all options or small details. Developers can add this in 10 mins flat, but they can not do it nonchalantly without minding how other variables gonna be changed from this addition.

71

Yeah I’m not reading your comments anymore. They are delusional rantings full of double speak.

72

Flying was a good addition. Seeing the game world from a above can be a nice experience.
Limiting access to flying (no flying at the start of expansions, no flying in some zones etc.) was an even better decision.
Flying is fine, but everything needs limitations. Especially something that reduces the need for exploration and overcoming obstacles.
But in that regard, quest markers/arrows, and instant teleportation to dungeon entrances etc. likely did more harm.

Fun features, as well as quality of life features, are always a balancing act vs. the core gameplay.

You literally cant have grieving with a PvP toggle though, since people chose to participate themselves.

I dont think that is how it works? That would be terrible. Afaik they only said you could get shards or whatever the name was, by killing monsters. Not that others couldnt attack you.
A World PvP toggle should of course not apply to Fields of Hatred.

There shouldn’t be any meaningful rewards from Fields of Hatred either. And you could have non-meaningful rewards from world PvP just as you can in Fields of Hatred (aka. cosmetics).

Camping a waypoint in a game where you might only encounter other players a few times per day? That doesn’t sound smart.

73

The context still missing. If you open that toggle and roam around you’ll get blindsided by some counter archetypes at some certain areas where you can be at a disadvantage. Mind you, I’m not talking about builds, I wrote, archetypes.

Melee combat classes have a disadvantage at vast open areas as they’re open to get shot from a screen away with no chance of retaliation. Reverse can apply and ranged classes can find themselves face to face with a melee combatant that instantly activated PvP at a narrow corridor. All else, you can get flanked when you’re busy with high density monster areas if you keep it open. You can forgot that it’s active and catch people who keep it open like you as well.

This is why other hostile players ought to appear on your map as well, just like a player who scored a kill streak but you wouldn’t know who is a real threat or not. To add, if someone is a blip on your map and they can easily opt out who can you target? This system has a few shortcomings if it’s not individually seeking duels from the existing player list.

You actually need to close that flag down if you were to trespass vast open grounds or very narrow areas. At the same time some ranged and caster classes can abuse this instant opt-out feature like you imagine to harass melee classes. Anyone shouldn’t be able to opt-in and opt-out in a whim as it would be abused. It’s not practical in the least.
Finding someone mutually agree to perform some sparring or PvP is bound to luck. Players who are playing solo will not be interested at such challenge as anyone interested in PvP will be actively trading for some sweet gear as expected. Plus by the distinct variables you can never really land a fair competition in a 1v1 duel unless you both act with the same manner of rules.

This is what I’m questioning and having a hard time reading between his lines. There are so many details to consider in this and it’s not simple as putting an on/off button somewhere then hoping it’ll work.

As a subgenre isometric ARPGs have many different things to consider in their design. Realizing it has shortcomings of player control comes first, player has limited view of the area plus limited control about what their character can achieve as it’s all based on randomized numbers and gear they equip.

This followed by power growth concerns. If said isometric ARPG going for a solo experience, you can go nuts with the player power, for example as seen in D3. No one gets bothered by it.
If you were to get a cut deal for multiplayer however things get messy. You can never balance this much variables for player interactions then hope to keep server performance at its peak. It didn’t go well with D2 and D3 for example. As I have read, PoE went for the model of NoX and it usually start up with creating teams. This is one alternative model to curb down randomization.

Keeping it in aggression zones only make it tolerable to a degree when you dare, but you have to use map to your advantage with this in mind and can avoid interruptors or offenders. This is a small mind game approach to it and I like it. Once you proved yourself in the Grounds of Hatred you can go out there and go amok anyway. Everyone will want a piece of you in that case.

Agreed. Hostile player won’t get to take the first shot. That’s an obvious imbalance there thus I question the whole ordeal. Why would you go that extra mile to embed PvP on top of existing PvP model? Especially in a genre that has no fame of making it work where everything reduced to a dice roll?

We will all hate it but let’s not lie, they will sell some easy to access cosmetic items on the monetization shop. So if anyone has little to no intention of trying PvP they won’t, but if they look for rewards with higher rarity then they will.

It wasn’t a smart move in D2 either but doesn’t prevent people from doing it along two decades.

74

I’m a survivor, i had a fiver, jumped on the bus and beat up the driver. Thought it was funny, nicked all his money, got off the bus i still got my fiver… and mooooore!

75

Sure. People chose that experience themselves however.

That sure depends on the balance.
Like a ranged character might have the initial advantage, but after that first attack might be disadvantaged.

Why would that matter?
You can also forget you are in the middle of a boss fight with Baal, or fall asleep on your keyboard, but that is hardly a reason for removing Baal.

That could happen with a toggle.

If it works like in WoW, it wouldn’t be instant opt-out. It requires a jump to a town. So you couldnt just find a player you want to gank, go to town and back again. You likely wont find that player again then.

World PvPers are clearly not interested in fair fights.

If we “ignore” for a moment that D2 missed the opt-out, it seems like it worked quite fine in D2.

Huh? It will only happen inside the Fields of Hatred. There is no “going out there”.

In D2 you knew which other players were in the game, not exactly comparable in any way.
People sitting at one waypoint in a big world all day without encountering other players… that would only hurt themselves.

That seems irrelevant for what was said? The cosmetics from PvP should of course not be the same ones as in the shop.

Fields of Hatred is exactly going that extra mile. Unlike a PvP toggle which is the smallest addition imaginable.

76

All you’re talking about is balance here. This isn’t griefing at all. Again easy to disprove this entire piece of text by simply saying if you choose to turn pvp on then you are fully aware that you can be attacked, by any build. Saying that people will be blindsided or some builds will have advantages over others is again, easy to disprove. When have rpgs not been some kind of rock scissor paper balance? If you sign up for pvp you are fully consenting to everything you seem to think is griefing. Again you’re demonstrably wrong.

Camping spots won’t work either there’s no guarantee you will matchmake with people at any location as it’s intermittent and again is an easy fix especially with the matchmaking is as it’s described. You just don’t allow matchmaking in obvious areas of the game like outside towns or waypoints, basically the only place where people aren’t quite ready is right after a loading screen. If they matchmake you anywhere else you’ll be fighting monsters and ready to fight knowing you have pvp on and consenting to pvp. They also could and I’m sure already have made it so you don’t just appear right on top of someone. Again an extremely easy to deflect point that makes no sense and any dev in about 5 seconds can answer this with a very easy bit of design.

I doubled checked the interview I thought it was from and I was wrong about this. When you go into the zone it notifies you that you can be attacked by other players. I’m glad it works this way, just allows people to exploit it and get a free easy 1st hit. That’s why a pvp toggle should only be able to be turned on in town. It already works like this in wow again a very easy fix for world pvp to avoid this.

D4 doesn’t look like it’s going to have huge journeys lasting 10-20mins or more just to get from one location to another. I don’t think we need flying mounts.

77

Oh, I was talking WoW. Flying in D4 would be bad. Heck, I am against having ground mounts in D4. Being able to easily run past enemies just seem wrong, and I fear it will end up serving the same purpose as the ridiculous mobility of D3 (and D2 with teleport).

78

I would buy a flying mount.

79

Blizzard just can’t resist putting mounts in because of this lol.

But honestly I will enjoy having to do some riding around. I think warping to places is boring. I like having some journeys like in wow. But just much shorter 5 or 10 min journeys with some monster killing instead of 20-30 min auto walk go make a coffee and browse google type journeys…

And honestly the best reason for journeys like this to exist for me is having some intermittent pvp possibilities on the way!

It will make these journeys so much more interesting for pvp players with zero affect to solo players who constantly drum up false negativity for pvp.

80

No… long distance travel is fine. That’s when you need someone who can portal there if you want reduced times and a lighter gold stash.