Blizzard: Diablo 3's PvP "A Tricky Question to Answer"

[exfileme]

Blizzard is still tooling around with Diablo III's PvP mode.

Blizzard: Diablo 3's PvP "A Tricky Question to Answer" : Read more

 

[Estix]

Most of the fun of Diablo 2, for me, was in how wildly insane and un-balanced it was: attacks doing 100000 damage, having basically infinite health or 99.999% dodge/block/what-have-you.

I like that they're trying to make it sane and fair, but I don't think that was what made it fun in the first place.

 

[sykozis]

Basically what they're saying is, they don't actually want to implement a feature that was promised because it will break from what they think the game should be.....even if that feature is what captured a LOT of sales....

 

[amoralman]

Where's a class-action lawsuit when you need one...

 

[bejabbers]

Don't care. I stopped playing D3 a long time ago. The game is no where near as fun as D2 was, and that's the reason it even sold as well as it did. Shouldn't have tried to retrofit WoW mechanics into Diablo.

 

[Bezzell]

"The only players that D3 has left are bots farming gold. They don't need PVP", Should have been his answer.

 

[kinggraves]

Not every game -needs- to be multiplayer. Introducing PvP means characters must then be "balanced" fairly, which as another poster said means you can't be overpowered even in the single player. Why can't we just have good single player games anymore? They are right, how do you functionally take a game based around killing hordes of mobs and turn those same mechanics into 1v1? The problem is the game was built around PvP being a possibility so that attempt at multiplayer balance is already present, to not have the feature at this point really is unacceptable. They gimped the game for a feature they never delivered.

 

[tului]

Not every game -needs- to be multiplayer. Introducing PvP means characters must then be "balanced" fairly, which as another poster said means you can't be overpowered even in the single player. Why can't we just have good single player games anymore? They are right, how do you functionally take a game based around killing hordes of mobs and turn those same mechanics into 1v1? The problem is the game was built around PvP being a possibility so that attempt at multiplayer balance is already present, to not have the feature at this point really is unacceptable. They gimped the game for a feature they never delivered.

They could just add the PvP mode, tell the people bitching about getting PvP "here it is". Then add an additional "click that you understand" stating that PvP isn't part of their vision for the game, they're not gonna balance around it, so take what you get and shut up.

 

[bryonhowley]

At this point I do not really care what they add or do not add. Since they made it on line only I will never buy the game period. Until they make a offline single player option it is a game I will never own.

 

[cats_Paw]

This game was such a waste. Good thing i Didnt bother with it.
PvP in a game where you can buy things for real money? That sounds boring as hell.
In 3 days everyone would be using the same character with the same build and the same spells/skills.

No wonder PvP never came out.

 

[Chairman Ray]

If what we have seen so far meets their quality standards, and the pvp doesn't, it really says a lot about how bad the pvp really is.

 

[ammaross]

"...stuff starts to not necessarily break down, but it starts to fray at the edges when you’re actually now focused on two people, or four people,"

If it doesn't "fray" doing 1v1 against most (all) of the major bosses, WHY would it break down vs a player? Sure, players may have a wider variety of skills/spells/defenses than a typical boss, but you'll have the same OP kind of stuff too. Just because you both insta-nuke each other (or in 20 seconds depending if they simply nerf damage to other players), doesn't mean there aren't people who would fully enjoy that sort of crap.

 

[kurjack]

Why does everyone hate diablo 3 so much. I bought it, played it till lvl 60, beat normal, nightmare, and hell. Had some fun doing loot runs. Getting ingredients for the rings, etc. Sure It wasnt as re playable as diablo 2 but most people I know that bought it had fun, or at least played it enough that they got there 60$ out of it.

 

[spartanmk2]

How can you pvp against that which has no life?

 

[ubercake]

I played the heck out of D1 and D2. D1 and D2 were good for their time, but that was a time when that's as good as it got from a gaming standpoint.

I bought D3 and found it doesn't have anything to offer beyond free-to-play (FTP) RPGs. I also found most newer games to be so far beyond D3 (even the FTPs) there's no point in playing D3.

To me, D3 is a game that should be an XBOX Live arcade title or something simple enough to run on a phone/tablet.

I think I just was looking for the nostalgia of the old days when I picked it up. I quit playing after a couple days.

 

[GNCD]

@ kurjack

You sure got downvoted for liking D3. I myself have played it enough that I got my $60 worth of entertainment plus enough D3 cash to purchase SC2, HoTS and a night of getting drunk. Still playing to get my DH geared up.

 

[robochump]

PvP is always the most difficult aspect of most games because players always find exploits making even playing field difficult. With D3 there is a vast difference between players due to gear. Only way to get best gear is paying for it and PvP will favor pay to win players. Luckily there is no penalty for getting face palmed.

Bliz needs to add open World PvP server option ASAP! Another D3 issue is that it is very anti-social by design. Jay Wilson was a moron!

 

[knowom]

yawn.....blizzard development team.....snore.....the playerbase