🚀 go-pugleaf

Christian Stauffer wrote:
> "chocolatemalt" <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> One word: Raids.
> Babe wrote DHKs would be abused, and believe me: He's right.
> I HATE it to get killed in a fight where I have no chance, but
> the software can't tell when this is the case and when not.
>
> > The current system doesn't encourage "sport", just rotten behavior.
>
> Implement DHKs, and you will see level 60s running from a zerg of
> lower levels.
>
> > 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.
>
> Good luck. I thought a lot how algorithms should look like that figure
> out when a fight between a level 60 and a level 30 is fair game and
> when it should be punished, and I haven't found an answer yet.
>
> Chris

Moreover pit a lone level 60 warrior in front of 50 level 20s and see
who wins in the end.

No way the 60 should get any dishonourable kills there. He should be a
hero for surviving.

Considering a single level 60 has little to no chance against 5 level
40s, again, I'm strongly opposed to DHK mechanisms in PVP.