Warmode HC Realm

[Doskey]

Your argument has several logical problems.

First, your "frontline" analogy doesn't work. On a real frontline, both sides can fight each other. A level 10 has essentially no realistic chance of killing a level 60, so this isn't "war"—it's a one-sided execution.

Second, repeating "skill issue" isn't an argument. The discussion is about whether the game mechanics should allow essentially risk-free griefing by high-level players, not whether a level 10 could somehow outplay a level 60.

Third, you keep saying "Warmode means risk," but then defend the ability to kill someone and immediately hide behind /pvp off. If it's really about war, why should the aggressor be able to opt out of the consequences while the victim permanently loses their HC character?

Finally, you're arguing against positions that weren't even proposed. Nobody said Warmode should be risk-free. The suggestion is simply that the attacker should also carry meaningful risk—whether that's being unable to disable PvP after a kill, or preventing attacks on grey-level players altogether.

Risk should go both ways. Right now, it doesn't.

[Berdal]

Dude. The analogy is ridiculous beyond comparison. It's completely one-sided. Why can't the "Warmode" player hide in bunker? To take PvP on/off is like choosing to be part of "the war" with no risk or repercussions. Like a civilian. Why would a civilian have a "missile", but later be untraceable or "out of the war"? Sure, in you analogy they can pretend to be John Wick. But they'll still be able to be fight against by adversaries. They'll have to fulfill their self-image be actually being vulnerable but untouchable...

But I'm not entertaining your trolling anymore.

Whatever was on TWoW is not entirely relevant anymore. This suggestion is building and expanding in that idea to make it less lopsided, but still incentive the PvP and danger of Warmode.

Anyway, agree to disagree. Here's a compilation of suggestions I think would improve the state of things if implemented partly or in it's entirety:
- For killing a grey HC player, give a 24hr dishonorable debuff "Blood-Stained Hands"/"Open Season" upon kill that prevents disabling of PvP.
- Give loot and trophy (ear buff? and/or donation points equal to their <level - 10>*) from killed player to the victor (lootable corpse that turns into gravestone upon corpse despawn).

*lvl 20 means 10 donation points.

I think this would add a more nuanced, balanced, incentivized and holistic experience for the Warmode challenge on HC. Where there are incentives to engage in war/PvP.

Your argument has several logical problems.

First, your "frontline" analogy doesn't work. On a real frontline, both sides can fight each other. A level 10 has essentially no realistic chance of killing a level 60, so this isn't "war"—it's a one-sided execution.

Second, repeating "skill issue" isn't an argument. The discussion is about whether the game mechanics should allow essentially risk-free griefing by high-level players, not whether a level 10 could somehow outplay a level 60.

Third, you keep saying "Warmode means risk," but then defend the ability to kill someone and immediately hide behind /pvp off. If it's really about war, why should the aggressor be able to opt out of the consequences while the victim permanently loses their HC character?

Finally, you're arguing against positions that weren't even proposed. Nobody said Warmode should be risk-free. The suggestion is simply that the attacker should also carry meaningful risk—whether that's being unable to disable PvP after a kill, or preventing attacks on grey-level players altogether.

Risk should go both ways. Right now, it doesn't.

Based.

[Adesta113]

Your argument has several logical problems.

First, your "frontline" analogy doesn't work. On a real frontline, both sides can fight each other. A level 10 has essentially no realistic chance of killing a level 60, so this isn't "war"—it's a one-sided execution.

Second, repeating "skill issue" isn't an argument. The discussion is about whether the game mechanics should allow essentially risk-free griefing by high-level players, not whether a level 10 could somehow outplay a level 60.

Third, you keep saying "Warmode means risk," but then defend the ability to kill someone and immediately hide behind /pvp off. If it's really about war, why should the aggressor be able to opt out of the consequences while the victim permanently loses their HC character?

Finally, you're arguing against positions that weren't even proposed. Nobody said Warmode should be risk-free. The suggestion is simply that the attacker should also carry meaningful risk—whether that's being unable to disable PvP after a kill, or preventing attacks on grey-level players altogether.

Risk should go both ways. Right now, it doesn't.

1) You are soldier with gun. Since usual soldier at 10 lvl which cant fight against missile, only hiding somewhere. Where is problem? You can fight with enemy 10 lvl soldiers, if mines, drones and missiles will allow you.
2) I see discussion from other side - give me free xp w/o chance to be ganked by high lvl (which again sent us to BG point)
3) I defend cuz everyone have this ability. Even me. I don't use it, but you want to took this possibility from me. If you wan't change it - change it also for everyone on server and by reason, with clear arguments and consequences for everyone, not because Watame ugghhh some other dudes kiling HC. He took risk while use /pvp. if you can't kill him doesnt mean that no one can kill.
4) Lie. You literally wrote

it would prevent situations where a level 60 player is killing a level 15.

so your topic starter point to PREVENT GANKING 60 > 15. As I wrote earlier - no problem at all with +-10 branch for wpvp w/o any bonuses from warmode except title (or maybe no need even title for HC, like Exhaustion didn't have it, it's just own-restrictment). But check again your topic-started msg. It don't have nothing except "give me exp bonuses and possibility to avoid wpvp with +-5 branches. Even BG have +-10. But you didn't mention anything. Just said "no gankie pls"

[Adesta113]

Dude. The analogy is ridiculous beyond comparison. It's completely one-sided. Why can't the "Warmode" player hide in bunker? To take PvP on/off is like choosing to be part of "the war" with no risk or repercussions. Like a civilian. Why would a civilian have a "missile", but later be untraceable or "out of the war"? Sure, in you analogy they can pretend to be John Wick. But they'll still be able to be fight against by adversaries. They'll have to fulfill their self-image be actually being vulnerable but untouchable...

But I'm not entertaining your trolling anymore.

Whatever was on TWoW is not entirely relevant anymore. This suggestion is building and expanding in that idea to make it less lopsided, but still incentive the PvP and danger of Warmode.

Anyway, agree to disagree. Here's a compilation of suggestions I think would improve the state of things if implemented partly or in it's entirety:
- For killing a grey HC player, give a 24hr dishonorable debuff "Blood-Stained Hands"/"Open Season" upon kill that prevents disabling of PvP.
- Give loot and trophy (ear buff? and/or donation points equal to their <level - 10>*) from killed player to the victor (lootable corpse that turns into gravestone upon corpse despawn).

*lvl 20 means 10 donation points.

I think this would add a more nuanced, balanced, incentivized and holistic experience for the Warmode challenge on HC. Where there are incentives to engage in war/PvP.

Your argument has several logical problems.

First, your "frontline" analogy doesn't work. On a real frontline, both sides can fight each other. A level 10 has essentially no realistic chance of killing a level 60, so this isn't "war"—it's a one-sided execution.

Second, repeating "skill issue" isn't an argument. The discussion is about whether the game mechanics should allow essentially risk-free griefing by high-level players, not whether a level 10 could somehow outplay a level 60.

Third, you keep saying "Warmode means risk," but then defend the ability to kill someone and immediately hide behind /pvp off. If it's really about war, why should the aggressor be able to opt out of the consequences while the victim permanently loses their HC character?

Finally, you're arguing against positions that weren't even proposed. Nobody said Warmode should be risk-free. The suggestion is simply that the attacker should also carry meaningful risk—whether that's being unable to disable PvP after a kill, or preventing attacks on grey-level players altogether.

Risk should go both ways. Right now, it doesn't.

Based.

Agreed, you can stop on it, cuz your point absolutely one-sided which don't said ANY argument WHY current system must be changed and even HOW. I mean literally none, your suggestion only how to punish someone, who act bad (by your opinion), but didnt break rules. Idea with "incentives" for donate point - just head reward, BUT only if you DARE to kill some lowbie. It can have place, but only if WM will not give exp or any other reward, since join to headhunting already reward (with donate points, by the way). And still it will make more work for GM. Why I can't create toon, lvling it for 20 in WM, then kill 10 own 1 lvl toon, kill 20 lvl toon with main and get my free coin? Change reward for gold? What sense of RMT banning, if server will give free gold (which moderator should check, if it was not multibox). So every post from you just against ganking for bonus exp (by the way, you never once disputed that warmode is taken for exp bonus or I already forgot about it?), not for nuanced, balanced, incentivized and holistic experience.

[Octofart]

Good idea. Having some chance to defend/get away just makes common sense. Id also add no petris for HC

[Berdal]

Good idea. Having some chance to defend/get away just makes common sense. Id also add no petris for HC

I agree.

Although I'd maybe prefer to see it changed to the WotLK version instead of the awkward broken version: https://www.wowhead.com/wotlk/item=1350 ... rification