🚀 go-pugleaf

Get a group together before you go into contested areas. I'm a lvl 22 [holy] 
priest on the alliance side, but I belong to a small group (a lvl 24 mage, 2 
lvl 23 warriors, and a 25 pally) that are able to complete some of the 
quests. That said, a group made up of low lvl 20s is about the minimum on my 
realm (Kil'Jaedon).

I'm a priest, however, so I am very conservative about what quests I attempt 
on my own. Speaking for myself, I would never attempt a quest in a contested 
area as a solo priest.

Cheers and good luck,

Michael

"Taipan" <empty@blackhole.com> wrote in message 
news:ddaoj1$coj$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> OK, i have a 60 hunter, 60 priest and various level 20 to 40 alts on 
> Arathor (all alliance), a PVE server and I'm a bit bored.
>
> So I started on a PVP server with some friends on the horde side (Al'Akir) 
> as a Shaman (ok, considered by many as the 'easy' option but it's the only 
> class I've yet to really play) and up to level 20, absolutely no problem.
>
> However, i did my first few quests in contested areas (running to Tarren 
> Mill for totem quest and then a few quests in Ashenvale) and I was ganked 
> 4 times straight by level 60 chars (2 rogues, a mage and a druid).  Now, 
> don't get me wrong - I'm not crying about it, I knew this was likely to 
> happen even before starting on a pvp server - but what I want to know is 
> just how hard is levelling on a PVP server in these contested areas 
> compared to levelling on a pve server?  Am I likely to be spend more time 
> walking back from graveyards than actually trying to level or are there 
> periods when you can actually do the quests without fear of being 1-shot 
> by a passing alliance?
>
> TIA
>
> --
> Arathor[EU]
> Taipan [60] NE Hunter | Gaijin [60] Human Priest
> Alts: [37] NE Druid | [35] Gnome Mage | [22] Gnome Warlock
>
> Al'Akir[EU]
> Teepee[21] Tauren Shaman
> 

There is what I like to think of as a 'corridoor of death' (for horde) 
between Tarren Mill and the farms to the west - where 51-60 alliance players 
make their way from Southshore to Alterac Valley.

Its not really that hard to level on a PvP server as long as you are a bit 
more watchful of your surroundings, and perhaps you might want to pick more 
secluded areas -- ie where high levels actually have to hunt for you rather 
than just swatting you like a fly on their way somewhere else.

But yes, you will still have the occaisional time where you'll have a couple 
trips in a row from the GY to your corpse due to dishonourable alliance 
killers :) 

Taipan wrote:
> OK, i have a 60 hunter, 60 priest and various level 20 to 40 alts on Arathor 
> (all alliance), a PVE server and I'm a bit bored.
> 
> So I started on a PVP server with some friends on the horde side (Al'Akir) 
> as a Shaman (ok, considered by many as the 'easy' option but it's the only 
> class I've yet to really play) and up to level 20, absolutely no problem.
> 
> However, i did my first few quests in contested areas (running to Tarren 
> Mill for totem quest and then a few quests in Ashenvale) and I was ganked 4 
> times straight by level 60 chars (2 rogues, a mage and a druid).  Now, don't 
> get me wrong - I'm not crying about it, I knew this was likely to happen 
> even before starting on a pvp server - but what I want to know is just how 
> hard is levelling on a PVP server in these contested areas compared to 
> levelling on a pve server?  Am I likely to be spend more time walking back 
> from graveyards than actually trying to level or are there periods when you 
> can actually do the quests without fear of being 1-shot by a passing 
> alliance?

Questing above 20 on a PVP server is significantly harder than questing 
in the same places on a PVE server. Stranglethorn Vale is especially 
famous for being hard to quest in because of roving bands of gankers and 
regular feuds. Nesingwary's Expedition is basically flypaper for both sides.

Most people I know on PVP servers do a certain amount of their leveling 
by grinding rather than questing. Grinding has the parallel benefits of 
1. generating experience in a slightly more predictable environment; 2. 
providing a handy drill to improve your skills with newly-acquired 
abilities; 3. making money.

Make friends. Both questing and grinding are more fun in contested areas 
with friends than without them. With friends you are a tougher target, 
and you die less often. When you do die, having friends to curse and 
laugh with about it makes it less noxious. And revenge is all the 
sweeter when shared with friends.

So you can make it better, by judicious use of grinding and by taking 
friends along on your quests. But, yeah, plan for it to be slower and 
more troublesome than on a PVE server.

Taipan wrote:
> Am I likely to be spend more time walking back 
> from graveyards than actually trying to level or are there periods when you 
> can actually do the quests without fear of being 1-shot by a passing 
> alliance?

I think you already know the answer to that.

-- 
Nathan Engle               Computer Support, IUB Psych Dept
nengle@indiana.edu         http://mypage.iu.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"

> OK, i have a 60 hunter, 60 priest and various level 20 to 40 alts on 
> Arathor (all alliance), a PVE server and I'm a bit bored.
>
> So I started on a PVP server with some friends on the horde side (Al'Akir) 
> as a Shaman (ok, considered by many as the 'easy' option but it's the only 
> class I've yet to really play) and up to level 20, absolutely no problem.
>
> However, i did my first few quests in contested areas (running to Tarren 
> Mill for totem quest and then a few quests in Ashenvale) and I was ganked 
> 4 times straight by level 60 chars (2 rogues, a mage and a druid).  Now, 
> don't get me wrong - I'm not crying about it, I knew this was likely to 
> happen even before starting on a pvp server - but what I want to know is 
> just how hard is levelling on a PVP server in these contested areas 
> compared to levelling on a pve server?  Am I likely to be spend more time 
> walking back from graveyards than actually trying to level or are there 
> periods when you can actually do the quests without fear of being 1-shot 
> by a passing alliance?

If you're like me and don't like having to rely on other people to get your 
quests done then I would suggest leaving the pvp server and save yourself 
many hours of frustration.  If you like grouping for all types of quests 
(not just instances), and are already in a guild, stay.  Like some of the 
other posters said, it can be fun throwing in some pvp while grouping.  I'm 
more of the soloer type so with my orc hunter at 25 I left a pvp server 
because I was spending more time dead than alive.  It just wasn't fun 
anymore.  I would rather quest when I want to, and pvp when I want....rather 
than someone else deciding when I pvp.

Just my 1.5 cents 

I have one character, a lvl 60 alliance warrior, on a PvP server, and
from my experience, lvls 20-30 is where u will be ganked the MOST.  I
think alot had to do with me questing in Ashenvale since
pre-Battlegrounds, there were daily raids on Astranaar.  Lvls 30-40,
the ganking will slow down a little, unless you're constantly solo'ing
in STV.  after 40, the bitterness sets in, and you start becoming the
GANKER.

Being ganked was frustrating at lower lvls, but I wouldn't move to a
PvE server.  I think that extra feeling of being cautious when u're
questing just adds a whole new element to the game.  It's a thrill.

"Taipan" <empty@blackhole.com> wrote in message 
news:ddaoj1$coj$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> OK, i have a 60 hunter, 60 priest and various level 20 to 40 alts on 
> Arathor (all alliance), a PVE server and I'm a bit bored.
>
> So I started on a PVP server with some friends on the horde side (Al'Akir) 
> as a Shaman (ok, considered by many as the 'easy' option but it's the only 
> class I've yet to really play) and up to level 20, absolutely no problem.
>
>snip<

Thanks all for the useful replies - yep Nathan I did 'suepect' it would be a 
bit tougher but now i have a better idea by how much.. I'm going to stick 
with it for now as I started on the pvp server with friends and wouldn;t 
like to let them down but I suspect I won't be power-levelling quite like I 
have done on the pve server.

--
Arathor[EU]
Taipan [60] NE Hunter | Gaijin [60] Human Priest
Alts: [37] NE Druid | [35] Gnome Mage | [22] Gnome Warlock

Al'Akir[EU]
Teepee[21] Tauren Shaman 

I havn't found it especially tough.

When i was doing STV with my main i really enjoyed the PVP aspect, kept 
us on our toes.

Taipan wrote:

> OK, i have a 60 hunter, 60 priest and various level 20 to 40 alts on Arathor 
> (all alliance), a PVE server and I'm a bit bored.
> 
> So I started on a PVP server with some friends on the horde side (Al'Akir) 
> as a Shaman (ok, considered by many as the 'easy' option but it's the only 
> class I've yet to really play) and up to level 20, absolutely no problem.
> 
> However, i did my first few quests in contested areas (running to Tarren 
> Mill for totem quest and then a few quests in Ashenvale) and I was ganked 4 
> times straight by level 60 chars (2 rogues, a mage and a druid).  Now, don't 
> get me wrong - I'm not crying about it, I knew this was likely to happen 
> even before starting on a pvp server - but what I want to know is just how 
> hard is levelling on a PVP server in these contested areas compared to 
> levelling on a pve server?  Am I likely to be spend more time walking back 
> from graveyards than actually trying to level or are there periods when you 
> can actually do the quests without fear of being 1-shot by a passing 
> alliance?
> 
> TIA
> 
> --
> Arathor[EU]
> Taipan [60] NE Hunter | Gaijin [60] Human Priest
> Alts: [37] NE Druid | [35] Gnome Mage | [22] Gnome Warlock
> 
> Al'Akir[EU]
> Teepee[21] Tauren Shaman 
> 
> 

"Taipan" <empty@blackhole.com> wrote in message 
news:ddaoj1$coj$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

I have a lvl 33 warlock on a Smolderthorne(pvp) and I've learned to adapt. 
First time I went to STV I dreaded the experience, 2nd time I played 
differently and it was great fun.  You have to kinda scout the area a bit 
before you go there.  With the warlock I can summon a wandering eye to scout 
for me so what I do is dive down into the water areas and summon the eye and 
look for enemy targets.  If you have no capability of properly scouting an 
area than just ask in chat channel if that area is safe to go to.
STV was an easier experience for me than shimmering flats where you really 
don't have too many hiding spots.  Also you may want to hook up with some 
folks to do quests rather by yourself.  PVP takes time to get used to so 
just give it some time. 

"Taipan" <empty@blackhole.com> wrote:

> However, i did my first few quests in contested areas (running to Tarren 
> Mill for totem quest and then a few quests in Ashenvale) and I was ganked 4 
> times straight by level 60 chars (2 rogues, a mage and a druid).  Now, don't 
> get me wrong - I'm not crying about it, I knew this was likely to happen 
> even before starting on a pvp server - but what I want to know is just how 
> hard is levelling on a PVP server in these contested areas compared to 
> levelling on a pve server?  Am I likely to be spend more time walking back 
> from graveyards than actually trying to level or are there periods when you 
> can actually do the quests without fear of being 1-shot by a passing 
> alliance?

If you want to save energy: Forget Tarren Mill and Stranglethorn Vale. (TM
got a lot better with battlefields, but the triangle of
TM-Southshore-Hilsbrad is still a deathzone for everyone < 40).

Having that said, it's not a too big deal on my server. Maybe because our
activity ratio is "only" about 1.7:1. Some zones are clearly horde
dominated, like Dustwallow, 1k Needles, Feralas, Desolace, ...

There are 2 things you can do:
- Play in groups
- Watch out. Standard quests don't require you to focus 100% on the mobs,
  so watch your back and if you spot alliance, be careful what you do

Chris

-- 
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (60) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15)  on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16)         on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jivarr - Charming Troll (12)       on EN Sunstrider [PvP] 

Taipan
> OK, i have a 60 hunter, 60 priest and various level 20 to 40 alts on 
> Arathor (all alliance), a PVE server and I'm a bit bored.
>
> So I started on a PVP server with some friends on the horde side (Al'Akir) 
> as a Shaman (ok, considered by many as the 'easy' option but it's the only 
> class I've yet to really play) and up to level 20, absolutely no problem.
>
> However, i did my first few quests in contested areas (running to Tarren 
> Mill for totem quest and then a few quests in Ashenvale) and I was ganked 
> 4 times straight by level 60 chars (2 rogues, a mage and a druid).  Now, 
> don't get me wrong - I'm not crying about it, I knew this was likely to 
> happen even before starting on a pvp server

In my experience you had pretty bad luck with so much level 60 ganking.
After BGs I haven't seen much level 60s in Hillsbrad (but I admit Alterac
Valley was generally empty on my server)
I had a couple of skull level attack me while I was low 20, just after the 
BG
patch, and skull levels tended to be present and aggresive when I went to
an area a defense channel warned about. Otherwise skull attacks were
neglectable.

>  - but what I want to know is just how hard is levelling on a PVP server 
> in these contested areas compared to levelling on a pve server?  Am I 
> likely to be spend more time walking back from graveyards than actually 
> trying to level

I agree with others, Stranglethorn Vale is rough and often requires 
grouping.
In contrast to others, however, I warn you, not to overgroup.
Not only the quests, PvP gets too easy too that way.

I suggest to occasionally quest alone and use grouping for chat only.
You can still complete a lot alone on a PvP server.
Dealing with PvP all alone is a thrill that is not comparable to group PvP
and yes, a lot of that will be running for your life.

Being in a group of 2 is probably optimal most of the time (a feeling of
being together and still some thrill)

> or are there periods when you can actually do the quests without fear of 
> being 1-shot by a passing alliance?

(Sorry ... I can't resist the opportunity to recall the following)

People can be pretty meek at times on PvP servers.
I remember a time when I went to the Hinterlands alone with my level 41
mage to do Grim Message (Nimboya's Pike). Every toon I met was
friendly to me and to others (and I was to them).
A lot of waving and such...

The level 30 pally short before the entrance of Hinterlands.
The level 42 dwarf warrior and level 45 orc warrior helping eachother
(they alternated tagging creatures and killed them together)
A level 48 gnome warlock was on my screen for about a minute.
A level 51 troll shaman who came along during the above.
A level 46 human warlock on a mount.
A group with a level 44 human hunter + other level 43 allie.

Hans 

hans escher wrote:
> Taipan
> > OK, i have a 60 hunter, 60 priest and various level 20 to 40 alts on
> > Arathor (all alliance), a PVE server and I'm a bit bored.
> >
> > So I started on a PVP server with some friends on the horde side (Al'Akir)
> > as a Shaman (ok, considered by many as the 'easy' option but it's the only
> > class I've yet to really play) and up to level 20, absolutely no problem.
> >
> > However, i did my first few quests in contested areas (running to Tarren
> > Mill for totem quest and then a few quests in Ashenvale) and I was ganked
> > 4 times straight by level 60 chars (2 rogues, a mage and a druid).  Now,
> > don't get me wrong - I'm not crying about it, I knew this was likely to
> > happen even before starting on a pvp server
>

Ok here's the deal. Do the level 19 Warsong Documents quest in
Ashenvale. This is the best example to illustrate the difference
between leveling in PVE and in PVP. On a PVE server, this quest is
ridiculously easy. On a PVP server, this quest is the best. Your duty
is to reach three spots in Ashenvale, from east to west. What will you
learn with this quest? That the enemy is not the environment. If you
want to get safely from Azshara to Zoram Strand, you have to forget
about the road, plain and simple. At level 19, you're the weakest
person in all of Ashenvale. Either you gang up and get an escort, or
you make yourself as tiny as possible.

There are areas where you should be ready to run for your corpse, as a
Horde:
_Ashenvale
_Hillsbrad
_Alterac
_Badlands
_Shimmering Flats
_Tanaris
_Blasted Lands

...and of course, Stranglethorn Vale.

Basically, forget about the fifty quests you get in Booty Bay and
Stranglethorn. Forget about their Experience reward, if leveling is
what you're looking for. On a PVE server it's an incredibly lucrative
area, plenty of quests, fast respawns on mobs, etc. On a PVP server, it
takes simply too long!

Quests there become challenges, and the whole area is like a big
battleground. Urban fighting, jungle fighting, arena fighting,
underwater fighting, and soon RaidVsRaid fighting near Zul'Gurub,
simply put, you go there to enjoy outdoor PVP, not to level.

Fortunately there are other places where you can level in relative
peace, even solo.

20-27: Stonetalon + Southern Barrens + a bit of Ashenvale
26-30: Thousand Needles, thousand needles, thousand needles... in
particular do the whole "test of..." quest chain.
30-32: Shimmering Flats. This one will be rough if you're unlucky.
Choose your grinding time well. You can come back to Ashenvale now.
30-36: Desolace, Desolace, Desolace, Desolace... Desolace!
35-42: Your favourite place ever, Scarlet Monastery.
36-38: Arathi (raptor, troll, ogres grind)
38-45: Dustwallow Marsh
38-45: Swamp of Sorrows
35-45: Badlands
38-45: Stranglethorn Vale
42-48: Tanaris

When you're almost level 40, you can go enjoy Stranglethorn Vale. It's
of very little use to go there at level 30 as a horde, simply because
the way to nezingwary is filled with level 36 mobs along with level ??
players. You WILL aggro mobs while trying to escape from players, and
you WILL lose durability repeatedly.

After that, Feralas is a good bet. But there are too few quests for
level 40 horde there. Or you can try the Hinterlands. I haven't gone
there with a level 40 since the apparition of Revantusk, so I can't
tell about the security there.

You will be forced to move a lot between 40 and 45. A lot. None of the
zones in which you'll be questing will give you enough experience to be
able to tackle the next quest series of the zone.

Be ready to be attacked many times in Alterac Mountains.

> After BGs I haven't seen much level 60s in Hillsbrad (but I admit Alterac
> Valley was generally empty on my server)
> I had a couple of skull level attack me while I was low 20, just after the
> BG
> patch, and skull levels tended to be present and aggresive when I went to
> an area a defense channel warned about. Otherwise skull attacks were
> neglectable.

It has changed since on our server.

People are bored and want their good old PVP server back. The honour
system is nice, the BGs are fun, but now they want it all together.

You will be attacked, grey or not, by people not really after honour,
just people who want to kill your character because they can.

Example: I was in Dustwallow Marsh, going to deliver a quest for the
onyxia key, when I met two greys from <MYRMIDONES>, a guild which
zerged me (gangs of 5 level ??) many times while I was peacefully
grinding in Azshara as a level 50. What could I do?

I killed them. Put that way, it's fair game when it's what they expect
from me (we had a chat on the realms forum about it). Other guilds I
/kiss on sight, or /love on sight. These were kill on sight. You'll
find many reasons to attack.

One of these is to prevent them from attacking first.

>
> >  - but what I want to know is just how hard is levelling on a PVP server
> > in these contested areas compared to levelling on a pve server?  Am I
> > likely to be spend more time walking back from graveyards than actually
> > trying to level
>
> I agree with others, Stranglethorn Vale is rough and often requires
> grouping.
> In contrast to others, however, I warn you, not to overgroup.
> Not only the quests, PvP gets too easy too that way.
>
> I suggest to occasionally quest alone and use grouping for chat only.
> You can still complete a lot alone on a PvP server.
> Dealing with PvP all alone is a thrill that is not comparable to group PvP
> and yes, a lot of that will be running for your life.
>
> Being in a group of 2 is probably optimal most of the time (a feeling of
> being together and still some thrill)

Two people in Stranglethorn is already a shield. Only the
stronger/bolder/unaware players will attack you. Any group in
Stranglethorn Vale is called a Ganksquad. Even if it's only a PVE
group. Because questing grounds are common in STV. And when you go
somewhere (basilisks & raptor, for example), you have to kill the
opposite faction to be able to kill raptors and basilisks.

And inevitably, Ganksquad lead to counterganksquad, which leads to
heavy ganksquad, which leads to Gankraid, which leads to the
eradication of all reds in Booty Bay from a side, then from the other,
until all settles in the Gurubashi Arena to get the chest, and after a
good night of pleasant killing and dieing, you hearthstone to
Orgrimmar, watch your Exp bar, and cry :D

> > or are there periods when you can actually do the quests without fear of
> > being 1-shot by a passing alliance?

Yup.

6am-8am server time. Any day, any place. I love the rising sun :)

In article <1123683564.973957.143560@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Babe Bridou" <babebridou@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You will be attacked, grey or not, by people not really after honour,
> just people who want to kill your character because they can.

Anyone have any inside info on why Blizzard didn't institute DHK's for 
killing grey chars on the opposite faction?  

It might be a challenge to implement this logic for large battles (i.e. 
your AoE takes them out as collateral damage), but negating the DHK if 
the grey attacks you first seems pretty simple.

I would think that even a slight penalty would be enough to teach 
everyone to ignore greys altogether.  As it is, only good manners 
intervenes, and it doesn't work on either faction on my server.

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

chocolatemalt wrote:
> In article <1123683564.973957.143560@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Babe Bridou" <babebridou@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>You will be attacked, grey or not, by people not really after honour,
>>just people who want to kill your character because they can.
> 
> 
> Anyone have any inside info on why Blizzard didn't institute DHK's for 
> killing grey chars on the opposite faction?  
> 
> It might be a challenge to implement this logic for large battles (i.e. 
> your AoE takes them out as collateral damage), but negating the DHK if 
> the grey attacks you first seems pretty simple.
> 
> I would think that even a slight penalty would be enough to teach 
> everyone to ignore greys altogether.  As it is, only good manners 
> intervenes, and it doesn't work on either faction on my server.
> 

There is no inside info to be had there in my humble opinion. A PVP 
server is just that, a server where anybody is potentially a target from 
anyone's assaults.

For having collected unexpected DHKs in raids over cities (and losing 
PVP ranks), I can tell that setting up DHKs for killing greys would lead 
to abuses. Again, on a PVP server, PVP isn't just tolerated, it is the 
core of the game, its challenge, its fun and its frustration at the same 
time. You win, you lose, you win easily, you lose too quickly. It's just 
like in a sport or a competition: any NBA player could just go to a 
downtown playground and teach a good lesson to the kids there - they 
will not necessarily feel good about that, but their aggressivity will 
call for them to train, train, train until they can face the champion 
again with equal weapons. This is the way of the PVP server. And it IS 
challenging for a level 60 to try to kill 5 level 40s at the same time, 
just as it is challenging for the 5 level 40s to kill him without 
casualties. Actually both parties should be rewarded if they succeed IMHO.

It can be tough sometimes to be corpse camped by several ??s at once for 
some time, but by experience, I can tell that I will never support any 
kind of in-game penalty for PVP, as it will inevitably lead to abuse, 
and the loss of signification in areas such as Ashenvale, Stranglethorn 
Vale or even Badlands.

They *could* try to setup a new server type with DHKs for greys, but I 
doubt it will work out well on a PVP server. Maybe on PVE servers?

Remember also that there are two games on a PVP server. 1-59, and 60. 
Both have similar lifetime. Some even say that the game only starts at 
60, and it's not only because of the high-end raid instances there :)

Babe Bridou wrote:
> hans escher wrote:

[snip]

>>Being in a group of 2 is probably optimal most of the time (a feeling of
>>being together and still some thrill)
> 
> 
> Two people in Stranglethorn is already a shield. Only the
> stronger/bolder/unaware players will attack you. Any group in
> Stranglethorn Vale is called a Ganksquad. Even if it's only a PVE
> group. Because questing grounds are common in STV. And when you go
> somewhere (basilisks & raptor, for example), you have to kill the
> opposite faction to be able to kill raptors and basilisks.
> 
> And inevitably, Ganksquad lead to counterganksquad, which leads to
> heavy ganksquad, which leads to Gankraid, which leads to the
> eradication of all reds in Booty Bay from a side, then from the other,
> until all settles in the Gurubashi Arena to get the chest, and after a
> good night of pleasant killing and dieing, you hearthstone to
> Orgrimmar, watch your Exp bar, and cry :D

Too true. :-)

I just wanted to interject that for the first time I am leveling up a 
priest beyond single digits, and finding it to be way more fun than I 
expected. I know that during some conversations a little while back, 
about the mage leveling project, you had warned me that lower levels as 
a priest were boring solo, but I am not finding them so. I don't know 
why--perhaps it's the experience of leveling a few mages--but I'm 
finding it very easy and a lot of fun.

A group of eight of us recently decided to all create new characters on 
Ursin, which is a fairly new PVP server. For some in the group it's the 
first PVP server; for me it's just a chance to experience a brand new 
environment with a bunch of good friends. My "senior" character on Ursin 
is Crawley, an Undead priest. He is just 16 now.

At 15 I took him down to Camp Taurajo to test him out against the 
Bristlebacks down there. I've used them as staple grinding for several 
characters, and I thought 15 was a bit low (you need to kill 16, 17, 18, 
and the occasional 19), but I wanted to test him out in a known location.

What a surprise! Crawley had no trouble with 16s, 17s, or 18s, and was 
able to survive several fights with multiple adds, or with 19s. I'm 
finding it easier to grind there with a priest than it was with an 
equal-level mage, even though I had lots of experience with a mage. The 
mobs don't die as fast, but Crawley has ground a whole level without 
dying at all, and without sitting down to drink more than three or four 
times the whole level.

Soloing a priest is just way easier and more fun than I expected. And 
it's almost like playing two totally different characters in one, 
because the experience of playing a priest in a group is so different 
from playing one solo.

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...

Taipan writed:
> OK, i have a 60 hunter, 60 priest and various level 20 to 40 alts on Arathor
> (all alliance), a PVE server and I'm a bit bored.
>
> So I started on a PVP server with some friends on the horde side (Al'Akir)
> as a Shaman (ok, considered by many as the 'easy' option but it's the only
> class I've yet to really play) and up to level 20, absolutely no problem.
>
> However, i did my first few quests in contested areas (running to Tarren
> Mill for totem quest and then a few quests in Ashenvale) and I was ganked 4
> times straight by level 60 chars (2 rogues, a mage and a druid).  Now, don't
> get me wrong - I'm not crying about it, I knew this was likely to happen
> even before starting on a pvp server - but what I want to know is just how
> hard is levelling on a PVP server in these contested areas compared to
> levelling on a pve server?  Am I likely to be spend more time walking back
> from graveyards than actually trying to level or are there periods when you
> can actually do the quests without fear of being 1-shot by a passing
> alliance?

Just started playing a few weeks ago on a PvP server with some friends
and
Tauren Mill is often a war zone (last week it seemed like there was an
Alliance raid every night) but a lot of times it's pretty easy to quest
in Ashenvale or Stonetalon. Sometimes there's Alliance camping at spots
they know they'll find lower Horde to gank, but most of the time you
can
go run all over without running into a single Ally.

Actually a lot of the time it seems like really high level players are
the ones who live and let live, it's people at or just above your level
who're most likely to gank on sight.

peep peep!

mikel wrote:

> I just wanted to interject that for the first time I am leveling up a 
> priest beyond single digits, and finding it to be way more fun than I 
> expected. I know that during some conversations a little while back, 
> about the mage leveling project, you had warned me that lower levels as 
> a priest were boring solo, but I am not finding them so. I don't know 
> why--perhaps it's the experience of leveling a few mages--but I'm 
> finding it very easy and a lot of fun.
> 
> A group of eight of us recently decided to all create new characters on 
> Ursin, which is a fairly new PVP server. For some in the group it's the 
> first PVP server; for me it's just a chance to experience a brand new 
> environment with a bunch of good friends. My "senior" character on Ursin 
> is Crawley, an Undead priest. He is just 16 now.
> 
> At 15 I took him down to Camp Taurajo to test him out against the 
> Bristlebacks down there. I've used them as staple grinding for several 
> characters, and I thought 15 was a bit low (you need to kill 16, 17, 18, 
> and the occasional 19), but I wanted to test him out in a known location.
> 
> What a surprise! Crawley had no trouble with 16s, 17s, or 18s, and was 
> able to survive several fights with multiple adds, or with 19s. I'm 
> finding it easier to grind there with a priest than it was with an 
> equal-level mage, even though I had lots of experience with a mage. The 
> mobs don't die as fast, but Crawley has ground a whole level without 
> dying at all, and without sitting down to drink more than three or four 
> times the whole level.
> 
> Soloing a priest is just way easier and more fun than I expected. And 
> it's almost like playing two totally different characters in one, 
> because the experience of playing a priest in a group is so different 
> from playing one solo.

Priests are really, really consistent soloists once you get to level 15 
or so. From then on, you have good firepower, enough to handle most 
mobs, and if you go the "fast" shadow way, you can say bye to downtime 
at level 15 (spirit tap), all the way to level 60.

Until level 10 I had troubles. Damage was low, downtime was immense by 
my standards - before starting my priest I had a hunter to level 25 and 
an enhancement shaman to level 38. After that, I decided to go holy 
right away, giving myself a consistent disadvantage (less damage AND 
more downtime) for solo gaming.

There are probably only two priests that levelled to 60 the "hard" way 
(troll holy priest) on my server, and between the two, I'm the only one 
to still have a heal [rank 2] hotkey, go figure ;)

"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. 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.

Another way to implement that would be to have PvP not be "on" for people 
20+ levels below you until they took some action then they would have PvP 
turned on for everyone not just the level +-20. 

Babe Bridou wrote:
> mikel wrote:
> 
>> I just wanted to interject that for the first time I am leveling up a 
>> priest beyond single digits, and finding it to be way more fun than I 
>> expected. I know that during some conversations a little while back, 
>> about the mage leveling project, you had warned me that lower levels 
>> as a priest were boring solo, but I am not finding them so. I don't 
>> know why--perhaps it's the experience of leveling a few mages--but I'm 
>> finding it very easy and a lot of fun.
>>
>> A group of eight of us recently decided to all create new characters 
>> on Ursin, which is a fairly new PVP server. For some in the group it's 
>> the first PVP server; for me it's just a chance to experience a brand 
>> new environment with a bunch of good friends. My "senior" character on 
>> Ursin is Crawley, an Undead priest. He is just 16 now.
>>
>> At 15 I took him down to Camp Taurajo to test him out against the 
>> Bristlebacks down there. I've used them as staple grinding for several 
>> characters, and I thought 15 was a bit low (you need to kill 16, 17, 
>> 18, and the occasional 19), but I wanted to test him out in a known 
>> location.
>>
>> What a surprise! Crawley had no trouble with 16s, 17s, or 18s, and was 
>> able to survive several fights with multiple adds, or with 19s. I'm 
>> finding it easier to grind there with a priest than it was with an 
>> equal-level mage, even though I had lots of experience with a mage. 
>> The mobs don't die as fast, but Crawley has ground a whole level 
>> without dying at all, and without sitting down to drink more than 
>> three or four times the whole level.
>>
>> Soloing a priest is just way easier and more fun than I expected. And 
>> it's almost like playing two totally different characters in one, 
>> because the experience of playing a priest in a group is so different 
>> from playing one solo.
> 
> 
> Priests are really, really consistent soloists once you get to level 15 
> or so. From then on, you have good firepower, enough to handle most 
> mobs, and if you go the "fast" shadow way, you can say bye to downtime 
> at level 15 (spirit tap), all the way to level 60.

Thanks for the tip; I had grabbed Blackout, because my career as a Fire 
Mage made me love stuns. Now I have a point in Spirit Tap.


> Until level 10 I had troubles. Damage was low, downtime was immense by 
> my standards - before starting my priest I had a hunter to level 25 and 
> an enhancement shaman to level 38. After that, I decided to go holy 
> right away, giving myself a consistent disadvantage (less damage AND 
> more downtime) for solo gaming.

Well, I gotta say that my Enhancement Shaman is the king of leveling 
among my characters, even better than my rogues. So if your experience 
was similar, then almost anything is going to seem worse by comparison. :-)

> There are probably only two priests that levelled to 60 the "hard" way 
> (troll holy priest) on my server, and between the two, I'm the only one 
> to still have a heal [rank 2] hotkey, go figure ;)

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.

> 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.

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

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.

"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

-- 
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (60) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15)  on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16)         on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jivarr - Charming Troll (12)       on EN Sunstrider [PvP]

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.

Sorry for being off-topic, but...

Babe Bridou wrote:
>
> 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.
>

How did they /YELL "marry me, Esa" during gameplay since language tend
to garble between Horde and Alliance? or is it only at the forum do
they propose so?

"collection2002" <linch9@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry for being off-topic, but...
> 
> Babe Bridou wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 
> How did they /YELL "marry me, Esa" during gameplay since language tend
> to garble between Horde and Alliance? or is it only at the forum do
> they propose so?

http://sunstrider.net/gallery/Jantje/Love_hug?full=1

Chris, still rolling on the floor

-- 
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (60) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15)  on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16)         on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jivarr - Charming Troll (12)       on EN Sunstrider [PvP]

Christian Stauffer wrote:
> "collection2002" <linch9@gmail.com> wrote:

> > How did they /YELL "marry me, Esa" during gameplay since language tend
> > to garble between Horde and Alliance? or is it only at the forum do
> > they propose so?
>
> http://sunstrider.net/gallery/Jantje/Love_hug?full=1
> 
> Chris, still rolling on the floor

...aaah... sweet memories...

>
> 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.
>
I totally agree with your next paragraph as being a viable option, but you 
are the minority of the gankers if you actually stick around and take on the 
odd (or group of) high level(s) that shows up.


I can live with it and have through one character and now a second 
character, I am just trying to understand the joy, and yes I have felt the 
rush of taking out an opposing faction member. I guess the difference is I 
don't kick the shit out of someone just because I can. I really don't 
understand the mentality you describe of enjoying ruining someone else's fun 
"because you can." And really that is all you are doing when you fight 
people 40+ levels under you, you take no risk, you can always just leave the 
zone if others come to get you (and in my experience 90% of the people are 
yellow and do this). If you were ganking the low levels to draw out some 
"heroes" then do it, show how tough you are, don't demonstrate you are 
spoiled child that gets his rocks off being a bully, yes it is a game, but 
all it really shows is that if you could get away with it in RL you would do 
it there as well. I guess I understand why people are afraid of what video 
games teach children, that you don't have to hold ALL of your life up to the 
same standards, only when there are consequences......

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

In article <42fc6864$0$1164$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>,
 "Christian Stauffer" <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> 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.

Zergs already happen, what's new?  30 Alliance lvl 40-60 descend on XR 
because they're frustrated at WSG wait times, and stomp the center of 
the village.  The only solution is to get a mob of people from Org to 
come help, and then the fight gets interesting.

If lower levels are brave enough to attack a lvl 60, let them try (and 
win if they have enough).  It already happens with zergs of lvl 60's.  
The zerg will have to deal with the response (if any).

> > 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.

On PVE servers there is already a "flag" mechanism with a 5-minute 
timeout that affects any neutral players than attack a pvp-enabled 
player (or NPC for that matter).  For the DHK issue, give lower level 
chars another flag for DHK negation... you attack an uber player, your 
DHK to uber players is no longer in effect until that flag times out.  I 
would say the timeout should be 30 minutes or so, to give the 
unter-players real pause before deciding to zerg the uber players.

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

Babe Bridou 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.

I entirely agree. If anything, I would prefer fewer rules rather than 
more. For example, the rules prevent me from attacking members of my own 
faction, and I don't like that. The rules also attempt to prevent me 
from talking to the opposing faction. As I've posted before, I don't 
like it that the game rules attempt to restrict who I'm allowed to 
regard as friend and who as foe.

If players want to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, then 
they should do that. I'm all in favor of vigilantism in the game, which 
concerned players could use to create and enforce standards of honor. 
Player-created standards are a great thing. But in order for that to 
work, you have to be able to talk to others, and attack them when they 
don't cooperate. Under the current rules you can talk to people you 
can't attack, and attack people you can't talk to.

It seems to me that many of the rules are designed to enable Blizzard to 
keep control of the story of the game. Although I understand why their 
creative people would want to do that, I often wish that they would give 
up some control of the story and let the players create a little more of 
it--in other areas as well as in this one.

"chocolatemalt" <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

Killing a level 20 as a level 60 _can_ be honorful. For example: When I'm
doing a raid and charge into the defenders and kill a level 20 that's is
whacking me (along with 20 other people), there's nothing unhonorable in
that. Should I have to worry about it and stop charging into enemy lines
as soon as there's a low level?
Just think about how to determine whether killing a low level is
dishonorable or honorable. If you're realistic, there's no way an
algorithm can do it.

> 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.

Civilians, not low levels. It has been implemented to keep people
from killing quest giving or vendoring NPCs, not to keep them from
killing low level NPCs.

> 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.

The honor points system is, sorry, bullshit. It's nice to engage people
in PvP, but it has nothing to do with honor and it's far away from
being accurate. It's basically a body count system with some
restrictions. If you think it reflects a players "honor", you're wrong.
If you think it should be able to do this, well... good luck. I'd be
very interested in seeing how blizzard would want to figure out whether
a kill is honarable or dishonarable.

> 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.

Ok, if your imagination isn't good enough, I'll help it a bit:
- You will see low levels raid and zerg enemy towns
- You will see high levels completely retreating from any PvP outside
  of Battlegrounds
- You won't see anyone with a rank higher > 6 after some weeks
IF that would be implemented. But that would seriously surprise me.

Chris

-- 
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (60) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15)  on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16)         on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jivarr - Charming Troll (12)       on EN Sunstrider [PvP]

"chocolatemalt" <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:

> Zergs already happen, what's new?  30 Alliance lvl 40-60 descend on XR 
> because they're frustrated at WSG wait times, and stomp the center of 
> the village.  The only solution is to get a mob of people from Org to 
> come help, and then the fight gets interesting.
> 
> If lower levels are brave enough to attack a lvl 60, let them try (and 
> win if they have enough).

Sure, I have no problems with this. But I'm afraid some people would
have problems when they get DHK by fighting back an attacking zerg
of low levels. And that's what you're suggesting.

Chris

-- 
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (60) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15)  on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16)         on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jivarr - Charming Troll (12)       on EN Sunstrider [PvP]

In article <43005e5e$0$1149$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>,
 "Christian Stauffer" <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:

> "chocolatemalt" <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Killing a level 20 as a level 60 _can_ be honorful. For example: When I'm
> doing a raid and charge into the defenders and kill a level 20 that's is
> whacking me (along with 20 other people), there's nothing unhonorable in
> that. Should I have to worry about it and stop charging into enemy lines
> as soon as there's a low level?

Ok, now I'm starting to worry about you.  You think a level 20 char 
poses any threat at all to you at level 60?  They would be lucky to get 
5% damage on you with their best attack, while you can turn around and 
whack em dead in one hit.

There were several weird Hordies, lvl 30, challenging lvl 60's for duels 
at the WSG entrance a few days ago and just for laughs I accepted.  They 
couldn't hurt me by more than 10% health per 10 seconds of duel time.  I 
dodged half the melee attacks outright.  I'm a mage.  Cloth.  No 
agility.  I stabbed with the dagger a few times and did major damage.  I 
got annoyed at standing there and taking minor damage after awhile, so I 
frost nova'ed and moved back, and half the health of the hunter and his 
pet were toast.  In another duel I used a Cone of Cold to slow the guy 
down, and it insta-killed him... I felt compelled to apologize for my 
mistake.  

The point is, level 60's are in an entirely different battle than lvl 
20's and attacking them is like a 30-yr-old guy joining the local 
elementary school soccer team, not as a coach but as a competitor.  What 
would you think about a guy who did this?  Maybe he has issues?  Why 
display this same malfunction in WoW, even under the cover of anonymity?  
I have no respect for the players on my server that do this, and 
unfortunately I can't say that my Horde compatriots (even teammates) are 
any less guilty than the Alliance.  I always figure it's insecure 
adolescents working out their pathologies, but... maybe not!

> > Also, there is a DHK system now for killing low level NPC's.
> 
> Civilians, not low levels. It has been implemented to keep people
> from killing quest giving or vendoring NPCs, not to keep them from
> killing low level NPCs.

Good point, didn't know that.  I thought the "Civilian" tag got thrown 
on any non-guard npc a certain number of levels below you.

> The honor points system is, sorry, bullshit. It's nice to engage people
> in PvP, but it has nothing to do with honor and it's far away from
> being accurate. It's basically a body count system with some
> restrictions. If you think it reflects a players "honor", you're wrong.
> If you think it should be able to do this, well... good luck. I'd be
> very interested in seeing how blizzard would want to figure out whether
> a kill is honarable or dishonarable.

So the current system is bullshit but you're defending it against change?

> > 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.
> 
> Ok, if your imagination isn't good enough, I'll help it a bit:
> - You will see low levels raid and zerg enemy towns
> - You will see high levels completely retreating from any PvP outside
>   of Battlegrounds
> - You won't see anyone with a rank higher > 6 after some weeks
> IF that would be implemented. But that would seriously surprise me.

Try to picture (if your imagination isn't buggered) the following:

  - Low level char has "DHK" flag on him for anyone > 20 lvls above.
  - Low level char attacks someone > 20 lvls above?  DHK flag gone for 
30 mins, plenty of time for repeated corpse-camping and education.
  - AoE from high lvl char will not affect a "DHK" char (a similar 
mechanism is already in place in the game code for non-pvp chars on pve 
servers, though there is currently an exploit that needs fixing).
  - A zerg of lvl 20's on a lvl 60 will result in the 20's becoming fair 
game on their first hit... each one will be insta-killed by the lvl 60 
with no DHK penalty, and in the case where they get lucky and take him 
down they will still be non-DHK for a long time and will suffer badly.

It may not work, it may get exploited somehow, but it *could* work and 
it's a potential big improvement on the current system of depending on 
good sportsmanship from louts.  If people want to act dishonorably, let 
them, and let their "honor" score show it.  In this regard the current 
system is much inferior, imho.

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

chocolatemalt wrote:
>
> Try to picture (if your imagination isn't buggered) the following:
>
>   - Low level char has "DHK" flag on him for anyone > 20 lvls above.
>   - Low level char attacks someone > 20 lvls above?  DHK flag gone for
> 30 mins, plenty of time for repeated corpse-camping and education.
>   - AoE from high lvl char will not affect a "DHK" char (a similar
> mechanism is already in place in the game code for non-pvp chars on pve
> servers, though there is currently an exploit that needs fixing).
>   - A zerg of lvl 20's on a lvl 60 will result in the 20's becoming fair
> game on their first hit... each one will be insta-killed by the lvl 60
> with no DHK penalty, and in the case where they get lucky and take him
> down they will still be non-DHK for a long time and will suffer badly.
>
> It may not work, it may get exploited somehow, but it *could* work and
> it's a potential big improvement on the current system of depending on
> good sportsmanship from louts.  If people want to act dishonorably, let
> them, and let their "honor" score show it.  In this regard the current
> system is much inferior, imho.

That is a great idea, IMHO.

I was thinking more along the lines of tracking who attacked first,
similar to it already tracking who tags a mob. But giving a character
two flags, one for PVP in general and one for DHK on and off would work
better.

You should post that on the Suggestions forum.

"chocolatemalt" <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:

> Ok, now I'm starting to worry about you.  You think a level 20 char 
> poses any threat at all to you at level 60?  They would be lucky to get 
> 5% damage on you with their best attack, while you can turn around and 
> whack em dead in one hit.

Al level 20 can:
- Sap me
- Sheep me
- CC me (Ice, Stuns, Roots, ...)
- Heal the level 60 I'm fighting

10 level 20 can kill me.

If you didn't figure it out yet: I'm talking about raid situations or
at least XvsX, not 1vs1.
And yes: Everyone poses a thread there. At least potentially. Whether
or not a certain player poses a thread to a certain other player in
a certain situation and a certain place can be determined by you and
me (maybe), but by an algorithm?

> The point is, level 60's are in an entirely different battle than lvl 
> 20's and attacking them is like a 30-yr-old guy joining the local 
> elementary school soccer team, not as a coach but as a competitor.  What 
> would you think about a guy who did this?  Maybe he has issues?  Why 
> display this same malfunction in WoW, even under the cover of anonymity? 

A bit of explanation, because I'm getting the impression you get it wrong
why I write all that stuff:

- Me big cuddly cow not loves ganking
- Me big cuddly cow hate bad bad guys who kill others in a not fair fight,
  no matter whether it is 1x60 vs 1x40 or 2x60 vs. 1x60
- Me big cuddly cow still don't want no DHK for killing lower levels
  because it can't work in raid situations
- Me big cuddly cow don't want no DHK for killing lower levels because
  me knows it will be abused

--> I don't support ganking <--
--> I don't support corpse camping <--
 
> I have no respect for the players on my server that do this

Neither do I. But I'm not talking about 1vs1. (Please take out a
text marker and mark this sentence, it seems quite important)

>> The honor points system is, sorry, bullshit. It's nice to engage people
>> in PvP, but it has nothing to do with honor and it's far away from
>> being accurate. It's basically a body count system with some
>> restrictions. If you think it reflects a players "honor", you're wrong.
>> If you think it should be able to do this, well... good luck. I'd be
>> very interested in seeing how blizzard would want to figure out whether
>> a kill is honarable or dishonarable.
> 
> So the current system is bullshit but you're defending it against change?

The idea to measure "honor" is bullshit. As long as you think about this
system as a system that reflects how honorable a player acts, you will
be disappointed because of various facts:
- To take damage is (at least for me) a much more honorable act than
  to kill someone, but it is not yet covered. If I charge into a group
  of 10-20 defenders, distract them for a while, and get killed, is this
  honorable or not? Why is it more honorable for a mage, who's standing
  back and doesn't risk anything, to nuke an enemy char I'm currently
  distracting?
- Whether an act is honorable or not is so depending on the situation it
  can't be judged by an algorithm.
- Every system that somehow rewards the players will be abused, e.g.
  "honor" points will be farmed. Farming = Honorable act?
- Every system that somehow punishes the players will be abused
  (That's why it's not implemented and why I am against it)

> Try to picture (if your imagination isn't buggered) the following:

:o)

>  - Low level char has "DHK" flag on him for anyone > 20 lvls above.
>  - Low level char attacks someone > 20 lvls above?  DHK flag gone for 
> 30 mins, plenty of time for repeated corpse-camping and education.
>  - AoE from high lvl char will not affect a "DHK" char (a similar 
> mechanism is already in place in the game code for non-pvp chars on pve 
> servers, though there is currently an exploit that needs fixing).

Never heard about this mechanism, are you sure this exists? Every AoE
I did so far in horde territory both flagged me for PvP and affected
the alliance player. (Happens sometimes in SM)

>  - A zerg of lvl 20's on a lvl 60 will result in the 20's becoming fair 
> game on their first hit... each one will be insta-killed by the lvl 60 
> with no DHK penalty, and in the case where they get lucky and take him 
> down they will still be non-DHK for a long time and will suffer badly.

There are still a lot of examples how to abuse this, for example:
Level 60 fights another level 60, a level 40 heals one of them. Bad
luck for the level 60 who isn't exploiting the system, because he
has the choice of either dying or loosing "honor".

Plus, it wouldn't really help a lot. If you got some balls, you'll
help your mates (e.g. by healing them) and will be not flagged most
of the time anyways. At least on a PvP server, which we were initially
talking about.

> It may not work, it may get exploited somehow, but it *could* work and 
> it's a potential big improvement on the current system of depending on 
> good sportsmanship from louts.  If people want to act dishonorably, let 
> them, and let their "honor" score show it.  In this regard the current 
> system is much inferior, imho.

Look: On one hand, I'd really appreciate it if there was a way to
keep people from unfair fights. No matter whether it's a 60 vs a 40
or 3 people vs 1. On the other hand, I expect people to act like
they had a brain and some social competence. If I see a hordy
ganking or corpse camping, he'll get on my ignore list. If I see an
ally doing it, he'll get on my KOS list.
After playing on a PvP server for some months, I'm actually happy it
is possible to act like a total tool, because

a) You figure out who's a cool person, no matter whether he's friend
   or foe
b) The moments when you don't get killed by another player that
   could easily waste you are quite cool.

I can tell you how the current situation on PvP servers is: You will
even get flamed for telling that people who gank and corpse camp
suck. You'll find others who agree with you, but that's not the
majority. We have a separate Subforum on our realms unofficial
forum that's only about "Dear XYZ, you suck".

The current system doesn't reward you for dishonorable actions.
This system is, by all means, far from being accurate. But it
doesn't hurt anyone if it is wrong. When I do something I would
judge as honorable (remember that "charging into enemy lines"
thing?) and the system judges the situation wrong, I won't get
any CP. That's it. No harm done, so what?
But if I do something that wasn't dishonorable and still get
punished because the system is wrong or got exploited, I would
get pissed. That's not entirely true, as I'm a scout and there's
not much I care less about than my bodycount score, but I'd bet
a large sum that the PvPers would cry so loud even the Blizzard
quality assurance would hear it.

Chris

-- 
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (60) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15)  on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16)         on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jivarr - Charming Troll (12)       on EN Sunstrider [PvP]

In article <430197a8$0$1162$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>,
 "Christian Stauffer" <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:

> Al level 20 can:
> - Sap me
> - Sheep me
> - CC me (Ice, Stuns, Roots, ...)

Chances are you'll resist most of this, but in any case let them throw a 
spell like that and then get the non-DHK flag.  At that point *any* lvl 
60 can go one-hit them, or any AoE happening would suddenly wipe them 
out.

> - Heal the level 60 I'm fighting

Not sure if you're aware of how flagging works on PVE servers, but 
healing a flagged char also flags you.  The same mechanism can work the 
same way for a DHK flag system.  Easy solution.

> 10 level 20 can kill me.

I seriously doubt this... once they take their first hits and become 
non-DHK, you'd swat them like flies.  An AoE char such as a mage would 
flatten them like a tornado through a cornfield.  But... even if they 
did succeed, they'd probably have several dead, and the long non-DHK 
penalty would make it very painful for them.  I can't see anyone making 
that work for them.

> If you didn't figure it out yet: I'm talking about raid situations or
> at least XvsX, not 1vs1.

Me too.  I have random mass mayhem at XR in mind.  On rare occasion a 
group of brave level 30 Alliance will descend on the east gate and draw 
equivalent level opponents out for battle.  When I see lvl 60 Horde join 
in and mop up the 30's it makes me ill... a fair and fun fight is 
ruined.  Of course, alliance rogues regularly one-shot all the flagged 
lvl 10-30 in XR as well.  Again, I say let them do it, but also let them 
feel some DHK.

> And yes: Everyone poses a thread there. At least potentially. Whether
> or not a certain player poses a thread to a certain other player in
> a certain situation and a certain place can be determined by you and
> me (maybe), but by an algorithm?

The algorithm is so simple (DHK flag) that the players still make the 
choices.  The lvl 60 can choose to be evil and take the DHK hit, or the 
lvl 30 can choose to be "a threat" by attacking and getting the non-DHK 
flag.  

> A bit of explanation, because I'm getting the impression you get it wrong
> why I write all that stuff:
> 
> - Me big cuddly cow not loves ganking
> - Me big cuddly cow hate bad bad guys who kill others in a not fair fight,
>   no matter whether it is 1x60 vs 1x40 or 2x60 vs. 1x60
> - Me big cuddly cow still don't want no DHK for killing lower levels
>   because it can't work in raid situations
> - Me big cuddly cow don't want no DHK for killing lower levels because
>   me knows it will be abused
> 
> --> I don't support ganking <--
> --> I don't support corpse camping <--

Well that's nice.

> > I have no respect for the players on my server that do this
> 
> Neither do I. But I'm not talking about 1vs1. (Please take out a
> text marker and mark this sentence, it seems quite important)

I never made that assumption.

> The idea to measure "honor" is bullshit. As long as you think about this
> system as a system that reflects how honorable a player acts, you will
> be disappointed because of various facts:
> - To take damage is (at least for me) a much more honorable act than
>   to kill someone, but it is not yet covered. If I charge into a group
>   of 10-20 defenders, distract them for a while, and get killed, is this
>   honorable or not? Why is it more honorable for a mage, who's standing
>   back and doesn't risk anything, to nuke an enemy char I'm currently
>   distracting?
> - Whether an act is honorable or not is so depending on the situation it
>   can't be judged by an algorithm.
> - Every system that somehow rewards the players will be abused, e.g.
>   "honor" points will be farmed. Farming = Honorable act?
> - Every system that somehow punishes the players will be abused
>   (That's why it's not implemented and why I am against it)

Interesting point about being a meatshield distraction and not getting 
honor.  However, if you do a bunch of damage and your targets later die, 
you get some honor points.  Also, if you're in a group and your act 
benefits your teammates and kills result, you share the honor.  So the 
system isn't perfect (non-grouped non-damaging meatshield is SOL) but 
it's workable.  I would hate Blizzard to scrap the whole honor system 
due to your exceptions with it.  It's exciting, it encourages pvp, it 
has purpose (special gear), it's neat.  It just needs a little more work.

> >  - Low level char has "DHK" flag on him for anyone > 20 lvls above.
> >  - Low level char attacks someone > 20 lvls above?  DHK flag gone for 
> > 30 mins, plenty of time for repeated corpse-camping and education.
> >  - AoE from high lvl char will not affect a "DHK" char (a similar 
> > mechanism is already in place in the game code for non-pvp chars on pve 
> > servers, though there is currently an exploit that needs fixing).
> 
> Never heard about this mechanism, are you sure this exists? Every AoE
> I did so far in horde territory both flagged me for PvP and affected
> the alliance player. (Happens sometimes in SM)

Yep.  From:  http://www.worldofwar.net/guides/pvp.php

"Additionally, Area of Effect spells will not activate PvP. This means 
that if a player of the opposing faction with PvP enabled walks into 
your AoE spell effects while you are fighting monsters, your spell will 
not damage them and activate PvP for you. If your PvP flag is already 
on, your AoE spell will damage enemy players (those with PvP enabled) as 
normal."

That's been my experience, and I agree with the intelligence of the 
rule, but ironically it has more often been a pain for me than a 
benefit.  I throw myself freshly into an XR fight, frost nova, cone of 
cold, flame strike... D'oh!  Nobody is hurt, all that mana and 
opportunity is wasted, and I'm still non-pvp.  Send a Fireblast against 
a targeted alliance scumbag, ok now I'm pvp.

> >  - A zerg of lvl 20's on a lvl 60 will result in the 20's becoming fair 
> > game on their first hit... each one will be insta-killed by the lvl 60 
> > with no DHK penalty, and in the case where they get lucky and take him 
> > down they will still be non-DHK for a long time and will suffer badly.
> 
> There are still a lot of examples how to abuse this, for example:
> Level 60 fights another level 60, a level 40 heals one of them. Bad
> luck for the level 60 who isn't exploiting the system, because he
> has the choice of either dying or loosing "honor".

This is tough if the lvl 40 wasn't flagged prior, but he will be after 
the heal.  This mechanism is already in place for pvp-flagging, should 
be quite simple with a non-DHK flag as well.

> Look: On one hand, I'd really appreciate it if there was a way to
> keep people from unfair fights. No matter whether it's a 60 vs a 40
> or 3 people vs 1. On the other hand, I expect people to act like
> they had a brain and some social competence. If I see a hordy
> ganking or corpse camping, he'll get on my ignore list. If I see an
> ally doing it, he'll get on my KOS list.
> After playing on a PvP server for some months, I'm actually happy it
> is possible to act like a total tool, because
> 
> a) You figure out who's a cool person, no matter whether he's friend
>    or foe
> b) The moments when you don't get killed by another player that
>    could easily waste you are quite cool.
> 
> I can tell you how the current situation on PvP servers is: You will
> even get flamed for telling that people who gank and corpse camp
> suck. You'll find others who agree with you, but that's not the
> majority. We have a separate Subforum on our realms unofficial
> forum that's only about "Dear XYZ, you suck".
> 
> The current system doesn't reward you for dishonorable actions.
> This system is, by all means, far from being accurate. But it
> doesn't hurt anyone if it is wrong. When I do something I would
> judge as honorable (remember that "charging into enemy lines"
> thing?) and the system judges the situation wrong, I won't get
> any CP. That's it. No harm done, so what?

For most people, the DHK system would be completely peripheral.  Low 
lvls wouldn't take the risk of getting non-DHK flagged unless they 
wanted to sit in ghost form for 30 mins (or 1 hr?  tweakable...) or deal 
with continual penalty-free ganks from the lvl 60's.  High lvls would 
ignore the low lvls with "DHK" labels, and their AoE wouldn't hit them 
anyway.

For those that are total tools, the DHK system may be their badge of 
(dis)honor.  I say, let the honor scale look like faction rep -- let it 
go negative.  Instead of just "Scout", "Grunt", etc ever increasing, let 
it go to "Dishonored", "Reviled", etc.  Let each negative rank mean a 
corresponding hike to the honor attaching to killing that person, so 
that dishonored players get ganked like no others.  Let there even be 
rewards, perhaps a random item right out of the dishonored player's 
inventory!  Wouldn't that be a riot.

> But if I do something that wasn't dishonorable and still get
> punished because the system is wrong or got exploited, I would
> get pissed. That's not entirely true, as I'm a scout and there's
> not much I care less about than my bodycount score, but I'd bet
> a large sum that the PvPers would cry so loud even the Blizzard
> quality assurance would hear it.

Blizzard has QA?  Are you spreading rumors?

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

chocolatemalt <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:
> Try to picture (if your imagination isn't buggered) the following:
>
>   - Low level char has "DHK" flag on him for anyone > 20 lvls above.
>   - Low level char attacks someone > 20 lvls above?  DHK flag gone for
> 30 mins, plenty of time for repeated corpse-camping and education.
>   - AoE from high lvl char will not affect a "DHK" char (a similar
> mechanism is already in place in the game code for non-pvp chars on pve
> servers, though there is currently an exploit that needs fixing).
>   - A zerg of lvl 20's on a lvl 60 will result in the 20's becoming fair
> game on their first hit... each one will be insta-killed by the lvl 60
> with no DHK penalty, and in the case where they get lucky and take him
> down they will still be non-DHK for a long time and will suffer badly.
>
> It may not work, it may get exploited somehow, but it *could* work and
> it's a potential big improvement on the current system of depending on
> good sportsmanship from louts.  If people want to act dishonorably, let
> them, and let their "honor" score show it.  In this regard the current
> system is much inferior, imho.

Ok, then every raid takes lowbies with it who are specifically ordered to
never attack anything. They WILL be killed accidentally and not just by AoE
which causes DHKs.

Look, the discussion really has taken place a lot since introduction of the
honor system. Up until now, there has been no variant that does not allow
players to cause "passive" intentional DHKs on the other side. Quite
frankly, I don't see a way to introduce DHKs for human players that is fair
and cannot be exploited. And add to that the fact that probably not two
players can agree on what was a "honorful" action and what was not.

Remember, you need to factor in stuff like healing (lowbie -> high level
and vice versa), mind control (take control of chars, let them fall down),
banish, AoE damage (not just from mages), pets on aggressive, guards,
lowbie zerging, duels, PvP flag, mobs pulled to pvp players with aggro
takeover (hunter feign death, pulling into enemy AoE damage), and probably
houndreds of more obscure things.

>>From my point of view, it just can't be done without opening at least one
exploit to cause DHKs on . Feel free to prove me wrong.

CU

René

-- 
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service                        $9.95/Month 30GB

"chocolatemalt" <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:

> In article <430197a8$0$1162$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>,
> "Christian Stauffer" <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> 
>> Al level 20 can:
>> - Sap me
>> - Sheep me
>> - CC me (Ice, Stuns, Roots, ...)
> 
> Chances are you'll resist most of this

A level 1 can sheep a level 60 with no chance to resist (at least, I've
never seen a polymorph fail).
Now imagine how this works out with a zerg of 10 characters. Every one
of them can harm me 1x before he has to worry about me.

>> - Heal the level 60 I'm fighting
> 
> Not sure if you're aware of how flagging works on PVE servers, but 
> healing a flagged char also flags you.  The same mechanism can work the 
> same way for a DHK flag system.  Easy solution.

Hrm? I play 1vs1 against another level 60. This level 60 is "DHK"
flagged (according to your rules: he didnt attack a > level 80 player
within the last 30 minutes). When a "DHK" flagged level 40 heals a
"DHK" flagged level 60, his flag won't go off. At least when you want
to implement it like the PvP flag: Healing a not PvP flagged player
doesn't flag you.

>> 10 level 20 can kill me.
> 
> I seriously doubt this... once they take their first hits and become 
> non-DHK, you'd swat them like flies.  An AoE char such as a mage would 
> flatten them like a tornado through a cornfield.  But... even if they 
> did succeed, they'd probably have several dead, and the long non-DHK 
> penalty would make it very painful for them.  I can't see anyone making 
> that work for them.

Doesn't have to make it work for them, and that wasn't my point. My
point is (I use this "charge" example a lot, pardon me) when I stand
in the middle of a zerg and use cleave (<- well, the druids
aequivalent) I hit 2 (or 3) random targets. And I don't see why I get
dishonored because of that.
When I stand between the enemy lines, I don't care who I hit, I don't
care what levels they are, whether I can kill them or not. I just want
to spread chaos, so that the mages have time to take down their targets.

(I'd never have thought that it's possible for a tank to hold aggro
on human players, but the sick thing is: It works perfectly).

> Me too.  I have random mass mayhem at XR in mind.  On rare occasion a 
> group of brave level 30 Alliance will descend on the east gate and draw 
> equivalent level opponents out for battle.  When I see lvl 60 Horde join 
> in and mop up the 30's it makes me ill... a fair and fun fight is 
> ruined.

Pardon me, but a fair fight (like 10xlevel 30 against 10xlevel 30) in
a raid? In a chaotic place like XR? I'm not very surprised this doesn't
work.

>> And yes: Everyone poses a thread there. At least potentially. Whether
>> or not a certain player poses a thread to a certain other player in
>> a certain situation and a certain place can be determined by you and
>> me (maybe), but by an algorithm?
> 
> The algorithm is so simple (DHK flag) that the players still make the 
> choices.

Your idea with the DHK flag has a simple disadvantage: Either you make
it so hard that people get punished without doing anything bad, or you
make it so soft it doesn't do anything in the end.

> Well that's nice.

I _am_ nice. Sometimes.

>> > I have no respect for the players on my server that do this
>> 
>> Neither do I. But I'm not talking about 1vs1. (Please take out a
>> text marker and mark this sentence, it seems quite important)
> 
> I never made that assumption.

Then your thoughts aren't 100% complete :o)

>> The idea to measure "honor" is bullshit. As long as you think about this
>> system as a system that reflects how honorable a player acts, you will
>> be disappointed because of various facts:
>> - To take damage is (at least for me) a much more honorable act than
>>   to kill someone, but it is not yet covered. If I charge into a group
>>   of 10-20 defenders, distract them for a while, and get killed, is this
>>   honorable or not? Why is it more honorable for a mage, who's standing
>>   back and doesn't risk anything, to nuke an enemy char I'm currently
>>   distracting?
>> - Whether an act is honorable or not is so depending on the situation it
>>   can't be judged by an algorithm.
>> - Every system that somehow rewards the players will be abused, e.g.
>>   "honor" points will be farmed. Farming = Honorable act?
>> - Every system that somehow punishes the players will be abused
>>   (That's why it's not implemented and why I am against it)
> 
> Interesting point about being a meatshield distraction and not getting 
> honor.  However, if you do a bunch of damage and your targets later die, 
> you get some honor points.

I do about 0 damage, I just stand there and look like I was easy to kill.
I'll die in the end end get 2 CPs, the mage in the background survives
and gets 200 CP.

> Also, if you're in a group and your act 
> benefits your teammates and kills result, you share the honor.  So the 
> system isn't perfect (non-grouped non-damaging meatshield is SOL) but 
> it's workable.

As a bodycount system: Yes. As a system to measure honorable acts: No.

Why does a level 60 receive more CP in a raid than a level 30 (he does,
because he kills high level players that are worth more CP)? He risks
ways less than a level 30. Why do I, when I charge into enemy lines,
receive far less CP than a mage who's placed 30 yards behind the lines
and doesn't risk anything? Why does a group of five level 60s killing
one lonely level 60 out in the wild receive any CP at all?

Honestly, I don't care about CP, but by all means: It IS a bodycount
system with some _basic_ rules that at least prevent people from
getting CP when killing a low level character. And not even this is
anyway near being accurate, because a level 60 on 20% health that
gets attacked by a fully loaded level 40 should get CP while the
level 40 shouldn't. It doesn't hurt anyone when the level 60 doesn't
get CP out of that encounter, but it does hurt him when he gets a
DHK for defending himself against that coward.

> I would hate Blizzard to scrap the whole honor system 
> due to your exceptions with it.

I have no expectations, because I know a measurement of how honorable
a player behaves is not possible.

> It's exciting, it encourages pvp, it 
> has purpose (special gear), it's neat.  It just needs a little more work.

I'm not suggesting to drop it, I just want to point out it does not
reflect a characters behaviour regarding honor.

> Yep.  From:  http://www.worldofwar.net/guides/pvp.php
> 
> "Additionally, Area of Effect spells will not activate PvP. This means 
> that if a player of the opposing faction with PvP enabled walks into 
> your AoE spell effects while you are fighting monsters, your spell will 
> not damage them and activate PvP for you. If your PvP flag is already 
> on, your AoE spell will damage enemy players (those with PvP enabled) as 
> normal."

Ok, thanks.

>> There are still a lot of examples how to abuse this, for example:
>> Level 60 fights another level 60, a level 40 heals one of them. Bad
>> luck for the level 60 who isn't exploiting the system, because he
>> has the choice of either dying or loosing "honor".
> 
> This is tough if the lvl 40 wasn't flagged prior, but he will be after 
> the heal.

No he isn't, see above/below.

> This mechanism is already in place for pvp-flagging, should 
> be quite simple with a non-DHK flag as well.

That's a different story. You wrote the DHK flag goes off as soon as
I attack a player 20 leves above me. It means that after level 40,
the DHK flag is always on. Which is not bad, because there is no one
who could "gank" when ganking = killing someone > 20 levels beyond
me.
But it also means that _everyone_ can support me with heals, buffs
and debuffs and doesn't loose his DHK flag.

>> But if I do something that wasn't dishonorable and still get
>> punished because the system is wrong or got exploited, I would
>> get pissed. That's not entirely true, as I'm a scout and there's
>> not much I care less about than my bodycount score, but I'd bet
>> a large sum that the PvPers would cry so loud even the Blizzard
>> quality assurance would hear it.
> 
> Blizzard has QA?  Are you spreading rumors?

They have, although we don't know what they do all day. But I'm
sure even they, sitting in the most hidden corners of Blizzards
buildings, will hear complaints when DHKs for players get
implemented :o)

Chris

-- 
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (60) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15)  on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16)         on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
      Jivarr - Charming Troll (12)       on EN Sunstrider [PvP]

Christian Stauffer wrote:
> "chocolatemalt" <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <430197a8$0$1162$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>,
> > "Christian Stauffer" <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> >
> >> Al level 20 can:
> >> - Sap me
> >> - Sheep me
> >> - CC me (Ice, Stuns, Roots, ...)
> >
> > Chances are you'll resist most of this
>
> A level 1 can sheep a level 60 with no chance to resist (at least, I've
> never seen a polymorph fail).
> Now imagine how this works out with a zerg of 10 characters. Every one
> of them can harm me 1x before he has to worry about me.
>
> >> - Heal the level 60 I'm fighting
> >
> > Not sure if you're aware of how flagging works on PVE servers, but
> > healing a flagged char also flags you.  The same mechanism can work the
> > same way for a DHK flag system.  Easy solution.
>
> Hrm? I play 1vs1 against another level 60. This level 60 is "DHK"
> flagged (according to your rules: he didnt attack a > level 80 player
> within the last 30 minutes). When a "DHK" flagged level 40 heals a
> "DHK" flagged level 60, his flag won't go off. At least when you want
> to implement it like the PvP flag: Healing a not PvP flagged player
> doesn't flag you.

I'm not sure if it was actually stated but I think it was assumed that
the DHK flag only applied to targets that would give honour in the
current system.  In other words the level 60 would not be DHK flagged
and so as soon as the heal landed the level 40 wouldn't be either.


> >> 10 level 20 can kill me.
> >
> > I seriously doubt this... once they take their first hits and become
> > non-DHK, you'd swat them like flies.  An AoE char such as a mage would
> > flatten them like a tornado through a cornfield.  But... even if they
> > did succeed, they'd probably have several dead, and the long non-DHK
> > penalty would make it very painful for them.  I can't see anyone making
> > that work for them.
>
> Doesn't have to make it work for them, and that wasn't my point. My
> point is (I use this "charge" example a lot, pardon me) when I stand
> in the middle of a zerg and use cleave (<- well, the druids
> aequivalent) I hit 2 (or 3) random targets. And I don't see why I get
> dishonored because of that.
> When I stand between the enemy lines, I don't care who I hit, I don't
> care what levels they are, whether I can kill them or not. I just want
> to spread chaos, so that the mages have time to take down their targets.

This is a tricky one.  If the random targets hadn't got their DHK flag
removed (for example they may have only just joined the raid but not
attacked anyone - or even they may just be choosing not to attack
anyone who would remove their DHK flag) then you could get a DHK for
killing them.  It could be tricky to get around that one - IMO if
someone is joining in a big raid then they should be fair game to
everyone.


> (I'd never have thought that it's possible for a tank to hold aggro
> on human players, but the sick thing is: It works perfectly).

As an aside I do think that something should be done to fix the
abilities that are useless in PvP.  As a hunter my bug-bear is that
feign death is next to useless in PvP.  It should prevent the other
side from attacking me and it doesn't.  The taunt abilities should
change the affected player's target to the taunter for a short while.


> Your idea with the DHK flag has a simple disadvantage: Either you make
> it so hard that people get punished without doing anything bad, or you
> make it so soft it doesn't do anything in the end.

That's cynical - it could work but it would be difficult.


> As a bodycount system: Yes. As a system to measure honorable acts: No.
>
> Why does a level 60 receive more CP in a raid than a level 30 (he does,
> because he kills high level players that are worth more CP)? He risks
> ways less than a level 30. Why do I, when I charge into enemy lines,
> receive far less CP than a mage who's placed 30 yards behind the lines
> and doesn't risk anything? Why does a group of five level 60s killing
> one lonely level 60 out in the wild receive any CP at all?
>
> Honestly, I don't care about CP, but by all means: It IS a bodycount
> system with some _basic_ rules that at least prevent people from
> getting CP when killing a low level character. And not even this is
> anyway near being accurate, because a level 60 on 20% health that
> gets attacked by a fully loaded level 40 should get CP while the
> level 40 shouldn't. It doesn't hurt anyone when the level 60 doesn't
> get CP out of that encounter, but it does hurt him when he gets a
> DHK for defending himself against that coward.

He wouldn't get a DHK for *defending* himself - he would if he attacked
first.



> >> There are still a lot of examples how to abuse this, for example:
> >> Level 60 fights another level 60, a level 40 heals one of them. Bad
> >> luck for the level 60 who isn't exploiting the system, because he
> >> has the choice of either dying or loosing "honor".
> >
> > This is tough if the lvl 40 wasn't flagged prior, but he will be after
> > the heal.
>
> No he isn't, see above/below.

As I said above, he would be.

steve.kaye

In article <20050816063824.241$1n@newsreader.com>,
 Rene <invalid@email.addr> wrote:

> chocolatemalt <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:
> > Try to picture (if your imagination isn't buggered) the following:
> >
> >   - Low level char has "DHK" flag on him for anyone > 20 lvls above.
> >   - Low level char attacks someone > 20 lvls above?  DHK flag gone for
> > 30 mins, plenty of time for repeated corpse-camping and education.
> >   - AoE from high lvl char will not affect a "DHK" char (a similar
> > mechanism is already in place in the game code for non-pvp chars on pve
> > servers, though there is currently an exploit that needs fixing).
> >   - A zerg of lvl 20's on a lvl 60 will result in the 20's becoming fair
> > game on their first hit... each one will be insta-killed by the lvl 60
> > with no DHK penalty, and in the case where they get lucky and take him
> > down they will still be non-DHK for a long time and will suffer badly.
> >
> > It may not work, it may get exploited somehow, but it *could* work and
> > it's a potential big improvement on the current system of depending on
> > good sportsmanship from louts.  If people want to act dishonorably, let
> > them, and let their "honor" score show it.  In this regard the current
> > system is much inferior, imho.
> 
> Ok, then every raid takes lowbies with it who are specifically ordered to
> never attack anything. They WILL be killed accidentally and not just by AoE
> which causes DHKs.

Anyone who accidentally targets and attacks some random player without 
regard for level, class, and (potentially) non-DHK flag... is a 
bottom-rung player.  Even in mass raid pvp mayhem today, if you're 
randomly charging into combat against whatever red-text player you see 
(e.g. the pally or warrior instead of the priest standing right next to 
him, sending him heals) you are just going to die over and over anyway.  
Such players are likely the ones who are already earning DHK's by 
killing the Civilian npc's because they can't seem to see the bright 
green "Civilian" tag.  In a game with huge choice of action, there is 
only so much you can do to help the players avoid dumb choices.

> Look, the discussion really has taken place a lot since introduction of the
> honor system. Up until now, there has been no variant that does not allow
> players to cause "passive" intentional DHKs on the other side. Quite
> frankly, I don't see a way to introduce DHKs for human players that is fair
> and cannot be exploited. And add to that the fact that probably not two
> players can agree on what was a "honorful" action and what was not.
> 
> Remember, you need to factor in stuff like healing (lowbie -> high level
> and vice versa), mind control (take control of chars, let them fall down),
> banish, AoE damage (not just from mages), pets on aggressive, guards,
> lowbie zerging, duels, PvP flag, mobs pulled to pvp players with aggro
> takeover (hunter feign death, pulling into enemy AoE damage), and probably
> houndreds of more obscure things.
> 
> From my point of view, it just can't be done without opening at least one
> exploit to cause DHKs on . Feel free to prove me wrong.

Hmm.  Did you miss the whole discussion about a non-DHK flag?  If you 
read it, did you understand it?  I'm confused because nearly all your 
concerns above are solved by it, so your concerns look like paper 
tigers.  I thought all of this was already talked about in prior posts.

There is *already a mechanism* for dealing with the pvp flag, most 
evident on PVE servers, that is very predictable and workable.  AoE does 
not trigger the flag, but if you HEAL or BUFF someone who is flagged, 
you also are flagged.  Basically, if you try to interfere with pvp 
without taking a risk on yourself, it doesn't work -- you are flagged.

There is no reason not to use this same mechanism for the non-DHK flag.  
A lowbie buffs, heals, MC's, whatever... *they are flagged*.  And then 
they are cut down.

How do you cause "passive" DHK for the other side?  Your AoE won't 
affect them unless they get the non-DHK flag.  They can't heal or buff 
anyone > 20 lvls above them taking part in pvp without getting flagged.  
If they heal, buff, or attack anyone in the high level fight, they are 
non-DHK flagged and open game.

As for your other points (duels, pvp flag, mobs pulled to pvp players, 
etc) I'm not sure I understand your worries.  How are these issues any 
less exploitable under the current pvp flag?  Do pets on aggressive 
attack pvp players when your are unflagged?  Can you get flagged with 
AoE?  Do zerging lowbies stay magically unflagged?  No, no, and no.  
Guards.  What is your concern about guards?  It will ruin a DHK system?

What I see is that the pvp flag system works very consistently (on pve 
servers) and only pvp noobs get tripped up by details.  Dueling a 
flagged player may flag you as well, but dueling is avoidable.  There is 
also an exploit where certain AoE (e.g. pally Consacration) will hurt 
nearby pvp enemy without flagging yourself, and Blizzard needs to fix 
that asap.

All the concerns about exploits with a DHK-flag system are equally 
applicable the the pvp-flag system which is working today.  If you 
choose to take advantage of your non-pvp status to sneak attack the 
enemy, you get flagged for pvp and deal with the consequences.  If you 
choose to take advantage of your DHK status to sneak attack some uber 
player (*much* riskier than the first scenario) then you get flagged as 
non-DHK for much longer (my proposal) than the pvp flag, and you deal 
with the consequences.

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

chocolatemalt writed:
> In article <43005e5e$0$1149$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>,
>  "Christian Stauffer" <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> > "chocolatemalt" <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Killing a level 20 as a level 60 _can_ be honorful. For example: When I'm
> > doing a raid and charge into the defenders and kill a level 20 that's is
> > whacking me (along with 20 other people), there's nothing unhonorable in
> > that. Should I have to worry about it and stop charging into enemy lines
> > as soon as there's a low level?
>
> Ok, now I'm starting to worry about you.  You think a level 20 char
> poses any threat at all to you at level 60?  They would be lucky to get
> 5% damage on you with their best attack, while you can turn around and
> whack em dead in one hit.

A lot of times it isn't somebody 20+ lvls ahead doing the ganking
though,
it's a couple guys 5-10 lvls ahead of you looking for easy targets
while
they're bored. Especially low 30's in Hillsbrad, Stonetalon, and
Ashenvale, 
and low 40's near Hammerfall.

peep peep!

> I entirely agree. If anything, I would prefer fewer rules rather than
> more. For example, the rules prevent me from attacking members of my own 
> faction, and I don't like that. The rules also attempt to prevent me from 
> talking to the opposing faction. As I've posted before, I don't like it 
> that the game rules attempt to restrict who I'm allowed to regard as 
> friend and who as foe.
>
> If players want to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, then they 
> should do that. I'm all in favor of vigilantism in the game, which 
> concerned players could use to create and enforce standards of honor. 
> Player-created standards are a great thing. But in order for that to work, 
> you have to be able to talk to others, and attack them when they don't 
> cooperate. Under the current rules you can talk to people you can't 
> attack, and attack people you can't talk to.
>
> It seems to me that many of the rules are designed to enable Blizzard to 
> keep control of the story of the game. Although I understand why their 
> creative people would want to do that, I often wish that they would give 
> up some control of the story and let the players create a little more of 
> it--in other areas as well as in this one.

Ah, you are an old UO or EQ PvP player (or even older Meridian 59). The 
problem with this is, it is virutally impossible to track down people. If 
you can do a /who <name> and find out where they are then that is fine. If 
people can disapear (UO had no /who, EQ /anon hid your zone etc) it is 
worthless. Players "policing" have to be lucky to come upon the people you 
are hunting to "punish." A free for all PvP server would be interesting, but 
would quickly become the least populated server (see DAOC), though it would 
start off as the most populated. The whole point of what you are saying is 
there needs to be some kind of punishment for being a dick, DHK was the 
suggestion within the current system. Why, because there will always be 
bullies when there are no consequences to doing something.

Would you play a system where you would be "lowered" to the level of the 
person you are fighting when you attacked them? No? Why not? Most of the 
gankers would say no, they get their jollies because they feel supperior, I 
would say great bring it on. (Course I have no idea how to implement this 
system, just picking a very hard to implement idea with no reguards to it 
being doable :) ) 

In article <4301d0dc$0$1145$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>,
 "Christian Stauffer" <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:

> "chocolatemalt" <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <430197a8$0$1162$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>,
> > "Christian Stauffer" <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> > 
> >> Al level 20 can:
> >> - Sap me
> >> - Sheep me
> >> - CC me (Ice, Stuns, Roots, ...)
> > 
> > Chances are you'll resist most of this
> 
> A level 1 can sheep a level 60 with no chance to resist (at least, I've
> never seen a polymorph fail).

Oh yes, it fails.  RESIST.  It can screw up your attack plan pretty bad, 
let me tell you.  I believe the enemy needs to have large arcane 
resistance for this to happen, and as a mage you can take the talent to 
make your arcane spells less resistable to (supposedly) make your sheep 
more dependable.

> Now imagine how this works out with a zerg of 10 characters. Every one
> of them can harm me 1x before he has to worry about me.

Yep, just like in pvp today (on pve servers).  Unflagged players get the 
first hit.  

If you think that's unfair, petition Blizzard to require a "/pvp" before 
any attack can be made (perhaps with a 5 sec delay afterwards).  Dunno 
if this would work, but in any case it's a separate issue than the DHK 
proposal.

> >> - Heal the level 60 I'm fighting
> > 
> > Not sure if you're aware of how flagging works on PVE servers, but 
> > healing a flagged char also flags you.  The same mechanism can work the 
> > same way for a DHK flag system.  Easy solution.
> 
> Hrm? I play 1vs1 against another level 60. This level 60 is "DHK"
> flagged (according to your rules: he didnt attack a > level 80 player
> within the last 30 minutes). When a "DHK" flagged level 40 heals a
> "DHK" flagged level 60, his flag won't go off. At least when you want
> to implement it like the PvP flag: Healing a not PvP flagged player
> doesn't flag you.

Good point, but easily fixed by non-DHK flagging any player that heals a 
pvp player > 20 lvls above them.  There will be a learning curve with 
this, just as with pvp flagging today (many a lowbie has been ganked 
after going pvp just by buffing a pvp friendly).  Chances are there will 
need to be a confirmation dialog to prevent easy mistakes, or better 
yet, just an "Invalid target" message and no heal, unless you 
deliberately click the non-DHK button to make yourself fair game to high 
level players.

I can see this as being the most onerous part of a DHK system, but still 
workable.  If lowbies want to heal or buff high lvl pvp players, they 
have to take the risk -- they get the non-DHK flag, whether by 
deliberate button/macro choice client-side or automatic trigger 
server-side.

> Doesn't have to make it work for them, and that wasn't my point. My
> point is (I use this "charge" example a lot, pardon me) when I stand
> in the middle of a zerg and use cleave (<- well, the druids
> aequivalent) I hit 2 (or 3) random targets. And I don't see why I get
> dishonored because of that.

You shouldn't be, of course.

What happens today if you're pvp, you hit Cleave against a pvp opponent, 
and there are several non-pvp opponents right around him?  Your Cleave 
doesn't hurt them.  Issue turned into non-issue.  The DHK system should 
work the same way.  Again, the mechanism is already there for pvp flags, 
use the same code for non-DHK flags.

> When I stand between the enemy lines, I don't care who I hit, I don't
> care what levels they are, whether I can kill them or not. I just want
> to spread chaos, so that the mages have time to take down their targets.

Then take your DHK you pvp damage-spamming madman!

Seriously, your AoE won't hit the DHK lowbies, and if you specifically 
target and hit a DHK lowbie, well... suffer, buddy.  The DHK flag should 
be very obvious, and if you attack anyway, you get some DHK, not the end 
of the world.  Mistakes happen, learning happens, DHK is just a rep 
system anyway, and if you *want* to become the king dishonorable dude on 
your server, well that's an option too.

> (I'd never have thought that it's possible for a tank to hold aggro
> on human players, but the sick thing is: It works perfectly).

And if the lowbies are dumb enough to attack your high-lvl-ness while 
you're tanking among them (and you're using AoE, directly attacking only 
a non-DHK target) then they all get flagged non-DHK and you can have at 
em without penalty.

> Pardon me, but a fair fight (like 10xlevel 30 against 10xlevel 30) in
> a raid? In a chaotic place like XR? I'm not very surprised this doesn't
> work.

It actually does work quite often because most Hordies see the mass of 
grey non-threatening alliance worth absolutely no HK and either watch in 
amusement, go look for the high levels at another gate, or leave xr for 
more productive activities.  The exception arises when some Hordie lvl 
60 or two decides to destroy the playground, to no benefit of their own 
beyond being dicks.

> >> And yes: Everyone poses a thread there. At least potentially. Whether
> >> or not a certain player poses a thread to a certain other player in
> >> a certain situation and a certain place can be determined by you and
> >> me (maybe), but by an algorithm?
> > 
> > The algorithm is so simple (DHK flag) that the players still make the 
> > choices.
> 
> Your idea with the DHK flag has a simple disadvantage: Either you make
> it so hard that people get punished without doing anything bad, or you
> make it so soft it doesn't do anything in the end.

The whole point to tweaking the pvp system with DHK is to avoid both of 
those extremes.  Call me an optimist, but I think it can be done and 
it's at least worth trying.  I don't see the point of endless pessimism 
about how it can't possibly work.  

There'd be no WoW at all if the Blizzard team had that same attitude 
("the world is too big, the servers will never stay up, the farmers will 
ruin the economy, lvl 60 chars will leave the game, chat spammers will 
make conversation impossible, etc etc etc").  

> > Interesting point about being a meatshield distraction and not getting 
> > honor.  However, if you do a bunch of damage and your targets later die, 
> > you get some honor points.
> 
> I do about 0 damage, I just stand there and look like I was easy to kill.
> I'll die in the end end get 2 CPs, the mage in the background survives
> and gets 200 CP.

Team up with that mage!

Also, if the enemy is not targeting the mage for immediate death, they 
are idiots.  Unfortunately the alliance at xr on my server are smarter, 
and I wind up at the top of the kill list, sometimes getting three 
stealthed rogues all for my very own.

> Why does a level 60 receive more CP in a raid than a level 30 (he does,
> because he kills high level players that are worth more CP)? He risks
> ways less than a level 30. Why do I, when I charge into enemy lines,
> receive far less CP than a mage who's placed 30 yards behind the lines
> and doesn't risk anything? Why does a group of five level 60s killing
> one lonely level 60 out in the wild receive any CP at all?

Excellent points.  The DHK proposal aims to fix the problem with huge 
level-imbalance ganking, but certainly doesn't fix all the other 
problems you point out.  Feel free to suggest fixes, maybe some Blizzard 
programmer actually reads this conference.

> Honestly, I don't care about CP, but by all means: It IS a bodycount
> system with some _basic_ rules that at least prevent people from
> getting CP when killing a low level character. And not even this is
> anyway near being accurate, because a level 60 on 20% health that
> gets attacked by a fully loaded level 40 should get CP while the
> level 40 shouldn't. It doesn't hurt anyone when the level 60 doesn't
> get CP out of that encounter, but it does hurt him when he gets a
> DHK for defending himself against that coward.

If he got a DHK, there's a bug.  The lvl 40 coward that attacks the lvl 
60 should be fair game for death without DHK.

As for getting major CP for killing some high level that has a tiny 
fraction of their HP, I'm all for a system that only rewards a tiny 
fraction of CP for that lame kill.  I can't count the times I've 
retreated to Sergra in XR with just 5% of my health, sat down for a good 
eat and drink, and some rogue ganks me.  My only consolation is watching 
Sergra smack them for 1500 dmg per hit, usually leaving their corpse in 
the same spot.

But again, these issues are well outside the DHK proposal.

> > I would hate Blizzard to scrap the whole honor system 
> > due to your exceptions with it.
> 
> I have no expectations, because I know a measurement of how honorable
> a player behaves is not possible.

This is computers, remember?  We just need to approximate it.  Antialias 
the jaggies and we fool the observer, and he is fine with it.  A perfect 
system is not necessary nor likely worth the effort.  It's just a game.

> > This mechanism is already in place for pvp-flagging, should 
> > be quite simple with a non-DHK flag as well.
> 
> That's a different story. You wrote the DHK flag goes off as soon as
> I attack a player 20 leves above me. It means that after level 40,
> the DHK flag is always on. Which is not bad, because there is no one
> who could "gank" when ganking = killing someone > 20 levels beyond
> me.
> But it also means that _everyone_ can support me with heals, buffs
> and debuffs and doesn't loose his DHK flag.

Valid concern, but fixable.  And admittedly it *must* be fixed or it's a 
major exploit that ruins the DHK system.  

Again, the mechanism is already there.  Buff or heal a pvp player, you 
are pvp.  Buff or heal a pvp uber player, you go pvp *and* non-DHK.  As 
I mentioned earlier this consequence may be dire enough that there 
should be a brake on it (either "Invalid target" or a confirmation 
dialog) but nonetheless this "exploit" looks eminently fixable with just 
a minor bit of imagination.  And you've got plenty of that, right 
Christian?  :P  

Maybe, just *maybe*, with this tweak and a few others, the honor system 
would suddenly look like fun to you rather than the drag that it is 
today.  That's the whole point.

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

chocolatemalt wrote:

> Maybe, just *maybe*, with this tweak and a few others, the honor system 
> would suddenly look like fun to you rather than the drag that it is 
> today.  That's the whole point.
> 

Sorry, but you still fail to see the point of it.

DHK will never, ever work. All that it makes is reduce the amount of pvp 
outside of battlegrounds. And that's something nobody wants to see on a 
PVP server. I'm personally a carebear, and I enjoy that duty because I 
enforce that law by myself.

There are many things happening once you reach 60 with your main 
character on a PVP server. Many, many things, making you see your game 
very, very differently. It's like a fresh restart, except you can now 
decide of your own quests, your own crusades, your own fun.

And yes, invading a lowbie city is a part of this fun. I like to see my 
character as one of the hundred most powerful in the realms. As a 
character that actually matters in the balance of power of my PVP 
server. Actually I'm able to recruit 80 men-at-arms and launch an attack 
on an enemy city. Or organize a defense of a zone. Strategical moves. 
And I can choose my reward, be it straight fun, novelty, or a new item.

A DHK is griefing. 10 DHKs make someone lose a full PVP rank. A PVP rank 
is one month of farming, one month down the drain. Don't tell me this is 
on par with the fun both side can get on a PVP server from a single big 
boss laying waste on a lowbie zone, and the lowbies setting up a defense 
and enjoying the satisfaction of retaliation.

I'm not a ganker, but I like to spend time in Ironforge with my troll. I 
go there, and what do I see?

I see rogues and paladins stunning me while the guards pound me down. 
That's right, two rogues, two paladins, all between level 20 and 40, 
stunning me enough to prevent me from healing the wounds that the guards 
inflicted. This is what I see as griefing. I'm having fun on a 
diplomatic visit, and these only want to kill me. Do I merit a DHK on 
top of that from setting them "Kill on sight"? They want me to be the 
enemy, then what about me being the big cannibal troll that "nobody in 
the region can drive away"? What about me willingly being a quest mob 
for the lowbies? Is that dishonourable? I still don't think so.

Actually I love it when others do that. I'm very fond of looking for 
ways to make them eat dust. I got my first level mounted ganker when I 
was 20 in ashenvale. I pulled him all the way to Zoram Gar Outpost then 
helped the guards zerg him. I got my first level 60 rogue and level 50 
paladin when they were ganking lowbies in Sun Rock, and I was only a 
couple minutes away in Desolace at level 33. I went there, organized 
defense, dotted the rogue and mana burned the pallie. The other day with 
my level 43 hunter I killed a 60 rogue in a fair duel. Twice. Earlier 
this month with 3 fellow guildmates we did some PVP in ganklethorn Vale. 
None of us was 40 yet, yet we downed a 60 rogue and another 60 paladin. 
Of course I die a lot when it doesn't work, and of course I bitch around 
and pester so much after them. But the joice I take from these little 
victory dwarfs the pain or boredom I experience when I get killed 
quickly and repeatedly.

Do they deserve DHK? Of course they don't! Bring on the fun, go on, 
gankers! We'll miss you all if you don't do it anymore for fear of DHKs. 
Just as my server misses city raids. I'll give a hundred corpse runs for 
a just a little city invasion every two days.

The current flame war on our forums is about 30 alliance in a random 
raid who pulled Cairne Bloodhoof out of the city to avoid DHK by using a 
pathing exploit. This flame war is lame, but everybody agrees to say 
that DHKs are a failure.

Remove DHKs, all forms of DHK, all forms of PVP penalty on PVP servers.

Please.

A DHK means days if not weeks of honour lost for the ganker, 3 minutes / 
1 hour at most for the victim. Think about it. Set up a rule and it will 
be abused, just as there are already /pvp abuses out there. If you want 
a rule, play on a PVE server, or learn to enjoy spending time killing 
and being killed, because that's why you should have chosen PVP. For the 
thrill of being always a potential target, for the sheer amount of 
targets that are offered to you, for the joice of victory, for the 
bitterness of defeat, and for the sense of achievement that comes each 
time you level in contested territories.

Lorad wrote:
>>I entirely agree. If anything, I would prefer fewer rules rather than
>>more. For example, the rules prevent me from attacking members of my own 
>>faction, and I don't like that. The rules also attempt to prevent me from 
>>talking to the opposing faction. As I've posted before, I don't like it 
>>that the game rules attempt to restrict who I'm allowed to regard as 
>>friend and who as foe.
>>
>>If players want to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, then they 
>>should do that. I'm all in favor of vigilantism in the game, which 
>>concerned players could use to create and enforce standards of honor. 
>>Player-created standards are a great thing. But in order for that to work, 
>>you have to be able to talk to others, and attack them when they don't 
>>cooperate. Under the current rules you can talk to people you can't 
>>attack, and attack people you can't talk to.
>>
>>It seems to me that many of the rules are designed to enable Blizzard to 
>>keep control of the story of the game. Although I understand why their 
>>creative people would want to do that, I often wish that they would give 
>>up some control of the story and let the players create a little more of 
>>it--in other areas as well as in this one.
> 
> 
> Ah, you are an old UO or EQ PvP player (or even older Meridian 59).

Nope. Never played a MMORPG before WoW.


  The
> problem with this is, it is virutally impossible to track down people.

Yes, that is a problem.


  If
> you can do a /who <name> and find out where they are then that is fine. If 
> people can disapear (UO had no /who, EQ /anon hid your zone etc) it is 
> worthless. Players "policing" have to be lucky to come upon the people you 
> are hunting to "punish."

That is true in WoW as well, because "/who" doesn't work on the opposing 
faction. Even if it did, it doesn't give you enough information to 
actually find them (and there are of course good reasons for that, too). 
If it did give you that information, the other problems are still there: 
you can either talk to someone (because he is of your faction) or attack 
him (because he is of the opposing faction) but not both.

  A free for all PvP server would be interesting, but
> would quickly become the least populated server (see DAOC), though it would 
> start off as the most populated. The whole point of what you are saying is 
> there needs to be some kind of punishment for being a dick, DHK was the 
> suggestion within the current system. Why, because there will always be 
> bullies when there are no consequences to doing something.

The point I am making is that the current rules prevent players from 
creating such consequences. I'd like them to allow us to do that.

Buy FIFA 15 coins on www.mmoxb.com, instant delivery with 24/7 online live chat, 5% discount with the coupon code "mmoxbsl001".