OctoWow - Forums

Doskey wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2026 2:58 pm 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.

Doskey wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2026 2:58 pm 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.

Doskey wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2026 10:08 pm it would prevent situations where a level 60 player is killing a level 15.

Berdal wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2026 3:33 pm 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.

Doskey wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2026 2:58 pm 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.

Octofart wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2026 6:29 pm Good idea. Having some chance to defend/get away just makes common sense. Id also add no petris for HC