🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1123837860.791432.251750@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
 "Babe Bridou" <babebridou@hotmail.com> wrote:

> chocolatemalt wrote:
> > In article <nILKe.413$O07.257@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
> >  "Lorad" <jeff_nospam@hotmail.come> wrote:
> >
> > > "David Carson" <david@eldergothSPAMTRAP.com> wrote in message
> > > news:42fa76e2$0$19402$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> > > > chocolatemalt wrote:
> > > >> Anyone have any inside info on why Blizzard didn't institute DHK's for
> > > >> killing grey chars on the opposite faction?
> > > >
> > > > Same reason the Australian football team didn't get a dishonourable 
> > > > kill
> > > > marked against their name by FIFA when they beat Tahiti 31-0.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > > David...
> > >
> > > Sorry if I ramble on about how I wish it would work, but what the
> > > heck...............
> > >
> > > I just dont get the joy of killing someone 40 levels under you. I play on
> > > PvP and I enjoy battles where the other side at least has a chance to 
> > > win.
> > > Maybe I want to lessen that chance somewhat, but 60 vs. 20 is no chance. 
> > > -
> > > Though I did just start an elf hunter on another server and stunned a 60
> > > warrior charging me, that was well worth the death I took 5 seconds later
> > > when he hit me once. -
> > > DHKs for someone 20+ levels below you would rock. Blizzard already knows 
> > > who
> > > starts a fight might as well use that to flag a low level as "ok to kill"
> > > for the person they attack. And no a level 20 attacking a level 60 will 
> > > not
> > > endanger the level 60 enough to need help from his/her level 60 friends, 
> > > nor
> > > would a level 39.
> >
> > My feelings exactly.  Currently anyone lvl < 47 is shown as grey to a
> > lvl 60 -- I think it would be reasonable to make everyone lvl 40-47
> > normal "grey" to a lvl 60, just as it is today (or more generally,
> > anyone 13-20 lvls below you) and this means no HK or DHK.  Anyone more
> > than 20 lvls below you could be represented as a darker shade of grey,
> > and have an accelerating DHK associated... a lvl 60 killing a lvl 39
> > would get 10 a cont pt penalty, a lvl 30 would be 100, lvl 20 would be
> > 200, etc... the numbers might need tweaking, but I think the concept is
> > solid.
> >
> > The current system doesn't encourage "sport", just rotten behavior.
> > There would still be plenty of danger for the lvl 20's from all the
> > enemy < lvl 40, and of course any higher lvl enemy that don't mind being
> > stripped of all rank.
> 
> No, no and no. Refused by a PVP zealot. Sport is one thing, fun is
> another, and griefing is a third thing altogether.
> 
> If you sign in for PVP, then you sign up for the the whole lot of it.
> Competition, sport, fun, grief, rant, thrill, fear and everything else.
> There is no "PVP rule" or "PVP code of conduct". You have to design
> your own behaviour. Some people will hunt in pack and kill on sight all
> enemy players. Others will not consider the other faction an enemy and
> will wave at them. And you have the infinity of variations between
> these two extremes. There is no uniformity of behaviour, and everybody
> is free to behave the way they see fit.
> 
> Regardless of what you think, the lack of any PVP penalty is a good
> thing. It brings life to a community. On our server, from the Horde
> point of view, I can tell several things already from the PVP behaviour
> of some Alliance guilds.
> 
> The <Nightshade> guild, for example, are evil. They hunt, they camp,
> they track, and they label themselves banes of the Horde. They want us
> to hate them (as characters of course) and insist on us chasing them
> and hunting them in return.
> 
> The <Artifact> guild, another example, is a superb guild of alliance
> heroes. In this guild are probably the strongest PVP characters, and
> they have one heck of a strong warsong gulch premade team. They have
> also lead the race to Ragnaros on the server until now. They are
> strong, fervent defenders of the Alliance. The first to Portal to
> Darnassus when the horde attacks. But they are also peaceful otherwise,
> and respectful of the enemy.
> 
> The <De Biergodenzonen> guild, a third example, is a nice, funny little
> guild of roleplayers. All dwarves, all brothers, all perpetually drunk
> doing stupid things. They *will* attack you and fight whenever
> required, but they always have the time for a /hug or a /love.
> 
> All guilds, all characters on the enemy side have individual behaviours
> that stand out due to the absence of rules/penalties on the PVP aspect.
> You'll see who plays big evil, and who plays cuddly nice. You'll see
> who plays honourful, and who plays the cruel roguish psycho. (sap &
> dance)
> 
> Putting penalties, any kind of penalties on PVP in contested lands
> would destroy a large part of this aspect.
> 
> 
> >
> > > The only issue here would be the level 39 healing the
> > > level 60 while he fought another level 60, but that could happen today, 
> > > and
> > > the solo 60 would still die if they focused on the 39.
> >
> > Just as buffing or healing pvp players also flags you for pvp, the lvl
> > 39 in this case should be flagged for "uber combat", meaning no DHK.
> >
> > What intrigues me about the DHK system now is the reasoning Blizzard
> > used -- clearly they felt there was a need to implement it for NPC's
> > with the "Civilian" tag since it was too easy for the uber-lvl players
> > to wipe out vendors and quest-givers in most towns at almost no risk to
> > themselves, thereby ruining the game for those wanting to quest.  Yet it
> > is also too easy for lvl 60's to ruin the game for lvl 20's and 30's
> > with the same no-risk, no-sport, no-point... but there is no DHK.  I
> > suspect Blizzard was worried about exploits and mechanics, and if they
> > get that ironed out then we will indeed see a discouragement of
> > hypogonadism in uber players.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there is no sport in one-shotting a green or grey.
> But it's fun. That's the spirit in PVP. You grow in power, you grow
> much more powerful than starting players. And you have the right (and
> the reward) to prove it to yourself. It's lame, but it's part of the
> fun.
> 
> If you refuse that part of "fun", or don't understand it, then you're
> not quite ready for a PVP server. Until they open a PVP-RP server, you
> have to accept the behaviour I'll describe in the next paragraph.
> 
> You'll understand all this on your first killing frenzy. Once you
> killed 3-4 honourable targets in a row, you can't just stop there, and
> you become enraged. Litterally. That's what happens to me. And that's
> what happens to almost all gamers who had some kind of fun in first
> person shooters, or any fast-paced multiplayer action game as well :)
> You're like "Next!", and the thrill gets more and more enjoyable as you
> know you're gradually becoming "it", the one to take down, the one to
> arrest, and when you see seven-eight red people sitting, cheering and
> spitting on your body, you know you were good. This is a part of the
> PVP fun that's in no way related to honour, and that should in no way
> be refused to players. It also works in groups, and in raids.
> 
> Again, PVP is not designed to be fair outside of battlegrounds. Players
> have to work to make it fair. And players engaging in fair match-ups
> gain more honour than unfair "frenzied" players.
> 
> And trust me, once you get purely into cross-faction interaction,
> nothing justifies penalties on a PVP server. There's too much to be
> lost there. And having PVP a tad bit more fair isn't worth robbing
> players their entire freedom of action when it comes to PVP.


There is nothing in a DHK system that would prevent the massive 
dishonorable behavior that you describe.  In a sense, it rewards it... 
if you want to play the evil character, the game adjusts your "honor" to 
show that.  It could even go into negative territory and generate 
faction rewards for whoever kills you.  What confuses me is your 
insistence on keeping all your "honor points" when ganking players 40 
levels below you.  I'm inclined to insert a Meriam-Webster definition of 
"honor" here.

More questions I have to ask:  Do you think the current system of 
variable honor points based on level, and < lvl 48 being zero honor for 
lvl 60's is a mistake?  Perhaps all players should be worth bigtime 
honor to all other players, regardless of level difference?  Afterall, 
isn't the current system "robbing players their entire freedom" to earn 
HK's by killing any other players?

Also, there is a DHK system now for killing low level NPC's.  This is 
clearly another onerous restriction, no?  Is it ruining the game that 
Blizzard put this in?  I want to be able to slaughter all those lvl 15 
quest givers and innkeepers without any DHK because it's restricting my 
freedom of choice to decide whether or not to be dishonorable.

Or maybe, just maybe... the "honor" score I have is a *measure* of that 
behavior?  Huh, what an idea!  Kill even-level or higher-level players, 
earn HK.  Gank much lower-level players, i.e. act dishonorably, lose 
Honor Points.  It seems almost too logical.

I think Blizzard had this idea all along and are still working out the 
game machanics.  I wouldn't be surprised to see player-DHK implemented 
in an upcoming patch, just as NPC DHK's were.

-- 
 Eonar:  Hemophage (60), Human warrior     Purge (60), Undead mage
         Dagobert  (34), Human mage        Vaik  (12), Night Elf rogue