Is it time to address divergent PvP rules/settings?

[Marine X]

I went to PVP zones pretty regularly on Live ( Virtue ) and had a pretty good experience with it till almost every time I set foot there solo a Team would swoop in and it was over in a few minutes. When you could take a team there and set up matches, which I think America's Angel still does, PVP can be a lot of fun. When it's a mugging, not so much. Haven't even seen a player in any of the PVP Zones in the 5+ years of Homecoming, so I think this isn't really necessary. I like keeping the basic parts of the game as they are now.

[ForeverLaxx]

On 10/10/2025 at 6:28 PM, Scarlet Shocker said:

 

There's a lot in this that I don't understand but sounds awful. 

It sounds worse than it was because it's colored by his own personal issues with the system that he never bothered to learn despite adamantly hating it.

 

For context, Diablo 2 is an old BNet-style game where any game launched as "public" would be put on a list that anyone could join, sort of like a "server list." You could title these whatever you wanted (like, 'finishing Act 3 boss' or 'trading -insert item-'), but you could only see games your character could join so Hardcore characters could only join Hardcore games (Hardcore being the mode with permaDeath). If you didn't include a password for your game, then anyone at your difficulty setting could join it. Most players aren't interested in PvP so this is usually not a problem.

 

However, D2's PvP system was pretty unique. In the menu that showed the players in the game, there's a button to flag yourself as "Hostile" next to the names of each player. You could theoretically only choose to be hostile to specific players rather than everyone in the game, but if the player you decide to be hostile towards is in a party, you become hostile to everyone in that party (and if you were in that party yourself, you're kicked out of the party immediately). There are important safeguards to this system that he failed to mention or outright misunderstood because he doesn't like any form of PvP, such as:

• You must go to Town (the "safe zone") to set yourself as Hostile. You cannot flag yourself while standing next to the people you intend to fight while out in the world.
• You cannot use any Portal that belongs to the player or party you're Hostile to. A Portal is an object spawned by a player that lets them immediately return to town (and back again) when interacted with.
• When you "go Hostile," any Portal that you've spawned is immediately despawned, so you can't teleport back to town, turn Hostile, then instantly come back to kill a player. You must get back to their location "the slow way."
• "The Slow Way" is most often accomplished by using the game's Waypoint system. These are permanent teleport locations, generally 1 per major area, that let you travel between other waypoints you've discovered and there is one located in town so a Hostile player could use this to quickly get back to the person they intend to PK. However...
• There is an 8 second lockout that prevents the use of these waypoints for a player who "goes Hostile," preventing them from quickly returning even if they know exactly where you are or are even standing on a waypoint at the time yourself.
• There is ample time to teleport yourself back to town, or simply quit the game, when a player goes Hostile towards you and you're not interested in fighting them. It's annoying to have to "start the level over," but it's way better than dying considering death in Hardcore is permanent. You could also simply set a trap for them if you want to fight since you know they're coming and where from (though often PKers are built to fight players, and if you aren't, this can be ill-advised unless you're in a group).

As you can see, it's not nearly the problem he claims it to be, and while he's well within his preferences to not have to deal with it at all, it doesn't help that "anti-PvP" people tend to have a warped view/memory of how things worked and will often mischaracterize these systems in a way that paints them as poorly as possible. The fact you can password-protect your games, even in Hardcore, to only play with people you trust and he still chose to play in public games anyway means he accepted those risks and didn't like how it panned out, blamed the game for it, then started hating PvP wholesale as a result.

 

EDIT: To the topic at hand, I think the current PvP systems are too entrenched to be modified much, especially by a volunteer dev team. While I personally prefer PvP and PvE systems to be as close to each other as possible, there's always going to be modifications required when facing players as player damage and health values are balanced around PvE primarily. Having enhancements that do completely different things in PvP vs PvE should probably never have happened and they should have just stuck with direct modifications to player-specific targets. This way, a player going for a Warburg Nuke or Shivan Shard would be able to fight the PvE enemies as expected, but if they're attacking/attacked by a player, things are adjusted so that the fight is more "even."

 

I concede that that's hard to do, though, and the effort involved may not be worth it considering the small PvP playerbase, especially as that playerbase is used to how things currently function. PvPvE areas are notoriously hard to pin down correctly.

Edited Monday at 05:33 PM by ForeverLaxx
remain on topic

[macskull]

6 hours ago, tidge said:

in one case a player is building to solve a game, the other case is building to humiliate another person.

My goal when building (or playing) any character in this game is to contribute to defeating enemies while minimizing the chance I get defeated. Whether the enemies I’m interacting with are NPCs or other players doesn’t change that goal. I’m not trying to “humiliate” anyone - if I wanted to do that I could just do broadcast PvP.

 

6 hours ago, tidge said:

The "just build better" approach ignores that pretty much any primary/secondary AT can "beat" 95% content, but this is not true in PvE, even factoring in the players' capabilities.

My point was not “just build better.” My point was that even factoring in player skill you’re going to have an easier time doing specialized tasks with a character that is specifically designed to handle those tasks. The biggest reason PvP builds are built and played differently here is not because of mechanics differences (though there is a learning curve associated with those) but because the character at the other end of your attacks is capable of doing things this game’s critters could only dream of.

[Troo]

6 hours ago, Marine X said:

I like keeping the basic parts of the game as they are now.

 

So would you care if the PvP zones had the same rules as PvE?

[Marine X]

Not really a big advocate for the PVP experience but I think the rules should stay as is. The small group of people who do PVP have built toons just for PVP and it would be a disservice to them to change things just so we could more comfortably invade the part of the game they enjoy most. If I want the badges or temp powers from there it is on me to accept the way things are there or don't go there. There is already enough unused space in the PVE side of the game without encroaching on the PVP zones. Just how I look at it.

[ShardWarrior]

On 10/11/2025 at 2:07 AM, Troo said:

Divergent rule sets (a sampling):

"Dueling, team Arena, solo zone play, and team zone play all differ in what is most advantageous."

"Power effects can vary based on the character using it, or what it's used on, or what kind of zone it's used in."

"Almost any effect of any power may be different between PvP and PvE"

"Some powers operate in "PvP mode" any time they are used in a PvP zone."

"Others produce PvP effects only when used on players."

"Aim + Build Up might provide only +49% ToHit"

"Most temporary powers are disabled in PvP environments."

"Players receive bonus Damage Resistance simply for being in a PvP zone."

"Elusivity's effects stack with Defense to make a character even harder to hit."

 

I still do not see a problem with this.  This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. 

 

Again, building for PvP is not much different in that building for Fire Farming or AFK farming or Procs differs from "normal" PvE builds.  I am sure most effective farming builds pupose built for fire farming are not the same as more "general purpose" PvE mission content builds.  Building for PvP which functions with different rules is essentially the same thing.  As has already been said, you just need to know what to build for and to practice, same as you would anything else.  There are guides for building for PvP same as there are guides for fire farming builds.  Those who want to learn and understand the differences between PvP and PvE wille invest the time to do so.

 

7 hours ago, Marine X said:

The small group of people who do PVP have built toons just for PVP and it would be a disservice to them to change things just so we could more comfortably invade the part of the game they enjoy most. If I want the badges or temp powers from there it is on me to accept the way things are there or don't go there. There is already enough unused space in the PVE side of the game without encroaching on the PVP zones.

 

Absolutely agree!  

 

 

[Troo]

1 minute ago, ShardWarrior said:

Fire Farming or AFK farming or Procs

 

Yeah.

These are all niches where the niche player isn't imposing their niche on others though.

 

I play in the PvP zones, always have.

I would do more PvP if the rule set was less divergent. 

 

Rules catering to a niche of a niche can be fine as one of the options inside an instanced map or arena. We don't have to have them in open zones.

 

Taking it a step further. Three of the four zones just don't get used to PvP. I'm in there doing the mini games, have been for years.

Folks have asked:

Maybe these zones don't need to be PvP zones.

Maybe some story lines could be built on those zones.

 

8 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

Those who want to learn and understand the differences between PvP and PvE wille invest the time to do so.

 

Your statement would hold water if there were even just dozens of players even casually participating in PvP. Folks aren't interested.

[ShardWarrior]

45 minutes ago, Troo said:

These are all niches where the niche player isn't imposing their niche on others though.

 

Actually, they are to a degree.  Again, builds crafted specifically for fire farming are different than general purpose every day PvE mission builds.  If you want to be more effective on a fire farm map, you will need to adjust your build accordingly.

 

46 minutes ago, Troo said:

I play in the PvP zones, always have.

 

As have I, and in doing so, we are accepting there is a different rule set in the zone.  

 

46 minutes ago, Troo said:

I would do more PvP if the rule set was less divergent. 

 

I am not sure I understand what is the difference here?  If you are interested in doing more PvP, then do your research and build accordingly.  There posted builds for PvP as well as other players who can and will help guide anyone who wants to learn.  As I am sure you will remember, there were certain ATs, powersets and builds that were far more effective in PvP than others.  The changes made in i13 were an attempt to level the playing field.  I agree the PvP updates in i13 were not the greatest, but I do understand the thinking behind them and what the developers at the time were trying to accomplish.

 

49 minutes ago, Troo said:

Rules catering to a niche of a niche can be fine as one of the options inside an instanced map or arena. We don't have to have them in open zones.

 

I can understand that, but I disagree.  These open zones are meant for PvP.

 

49 minutes ago, Troo said:

Your statement would hold water if there were even just dozens of players even casually participating in PvP. Folks aren't interested.

 

Your statement would hold water if you knew how many people were interested and actively participating in PvP.  I am fairly confident you have no idea.  Neither do I.  I would imagine that the HC team would not have invested the time into Temporal Warriors if there were not players engaging in PvP, but that is admittedly a guess on my part.  Even if there is a relatively small PvP community here, I agree with what @Marine X posted earlier.  They already have limited options for their preferred style of play.  I do not think we should be looking to take away from the little they do have.

 

Sorry, I just do not see the need for this change.

[Troo]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

Your statement would hold water if you knew how many people were interested and actively participating in PvP.  I am fairly confident you have no idea. 

 

Well, I do know.

It is crickets in any zone other than in RV occasionally. It has been this way for years. (I see that with my own eyes on Indom and Excel)

The arena scene was already small but engaged and has gone down. (Arena players and current PvP in-the-loopers have said so)

Have some folks chime in if it's different. Maybe there is a private group that meets daily.. it is possible. I'm not saying it's dead dead. I'm saying it is diminished, and the stuff they don't use could be available to more people.

 

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

I would imagine that the HC team would not have invested the time into Temporal Warriors if there were not players engaging in PvP, but that is admittedly a guess on my part.

 

They did. Though at that time the PvP group was fairly engaged and they had the ear of someone who could do something.

What we don't know is what kind of time investment was it?

I can play the guessing game and say I would guess it wasn't that much time relatively. (It was barely Q/A'd and tested)

 

How do PvP folks feel? It's a bit all over the place.

On 4/9/2022 at 12:05 PM, M3z said:

But there are other devs who don't have a coherent vision of the game, don't understand what's strong and what isn't (they were going to add -def and -regen to all fire sets INCLUDING fire manipulations for blasters which is already the strongest set in the entire game for PVE) and overall don't listen/don't give a fuck what anyone thinks or wants or what communities think or want lol. Like I said if I thought they had a stronger understanding of the game I wouldn't care but it's obvious they don't. And what's frustrating is they don't come to us to gap their understanding they just pretend to listen to opinion then do whatever the fuck they want lol. And I'm not just talking about me, I'm talking about anyone..

 

 

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

Even if there is a relatively small PvP community here, I agree with what @Marine X posted earlier.  They already have limited options for their preferred style of play.  I do not think we should be looking to take away from the little they do have.

 

To you and others:

I don't want to take away what players use.

I say continue to support efforts to build a PvP community. Continue to refine the settings. Give them what they want WHERE THEY USE IT.

 

I am asking should we maybe stop gating content, assets and zones behind a divergent set of PvP rules? Yes / No

 

There are actually different versions of PvP rules.. currently. There are options when setting up matches. 

 

Maybe we should have 'zone PvP' match closer to PvE and lower the barrier to entry.

If that's not an option maybe the zones shouldn't be PvP if the zones aren't getting used for PvP. 

 

It's just a discussion.

 

Edited Tuesday at 06:11 PM by Troo

[ShardWarrior]

46 minutes ago, Troo said:

It is crickets in any zone other than in RV occasionally. It has been this way for years. (I see that with my own eyes on Indom and Excel)

 

I do not disagree with you at all.  Indom already has such a tiny population, it stands to reason most zones are empty.  It is infrequent, but on Excel I do see announcements for matches and zone PvP in the Arena channel.  I would also add that PvP zones are not the only zones that are relatively empty or infrequently used on higher population servers.  I rarely see anyone in zones like Crey's Folly, Faultline, Dark Astoria or Boomtown outside of GM hunting or TFs.  The Rogue Isles can be a literal ghost town as well.  There are plenty of PvE zones to fill up with activity.  In my opinion those should get revitalized first before changing PvP zones.

 

46 minutes ago, Troo said:

To you and others:

I don't want to take away what players use.

I say continue to support efforts to build a PvP community. Continue to refine the settings. Give them what they want WHERE THEY USE IT. 

...

If that's not an option maybe the zones shouldn't be PvP if the zones aren't getting used for PvP. 

 

You are asking to make changes to zones other players use.  I know for a fact there are PvP'ers in RV.  There is always at least one other player in there attacking me every time I go in there to work on badges. 😁 

 

47 minutes ago, Troo said:

There are actually different versions of PvP rules.. currently. There are options when setting up matches. 

 

There are options for PvE content as well, such as the difficulty settings and various other settings when running Ouro arcs or challenge mode TFs.

Edited Tuesday at 06:53 PM by ShardWarrior