PvP and Honor System comments

[Paelos]

They are up on WoW Europe first apparently.

http://www.wow-europe.com/en/pvp/pvp-article-part2.html

[Shockeye]

Way too complex for.. well.. a fun game. Give me FFA and call it a day.

Also, what's to stop 5 or 6 "civillians" from ganging up on someone who if they attacked said "civillians" would get dishonorable kills on all of them?

[Morfiend]

GIMME GIMME!!!!!

[Paelos]

Way too complex for.. well.. a fun game. Give me FFA and call it a day.

Also, what's to stop 5 or 6 "civillians" from ganging up on someone who if they attacked said "civillians" would get dishonorable kills on all of them?

I'm pretty sure it would be easy to code a who-attacked-who component into the game. I would imagine self-defense kills would not effect either category.

[Rasix]

Does it matter anyways? In the article it said Dishonorable kills wouldn't be rewarded but they would also not be punished.

[Paelos]

Does it matter anyways? In the article it said Dishonorable kills wouldn't be rewarded but they would also not be punished.

Player versus player battles are always best when played out between opposing forces of equal level. Thus, our system creates incentives to attack foes around your level. And it also does not reward those who kill players far below their level. If the player or PvP-enabled NPC you kill is trivial (i.e. gray to you), then you won't get an Honorable Kill. In fact, if you kill an NPC who is not PvP-enabled or who is PvP-enabled and trivial, you will gain a Dishonorable Kill. This exacts a penalty on those who, for whatever reason, kill trivial NPC bystanders. To make it easier to identify a potential Dishonorable Kill, such NPCs will be labeled as "civilians" in their tooltip. Note that dishonor does not apply to killing players, regardless of their level.

Not necessarily. Dishonorable player kills won't be punished, but kills on NPCs during raids will. Personally I think it's freaking backwards too.

[Rasix]

Read further down in the article.

[Paelos]

Read further down in the article.

Ok so they say something exacts a penalty, and in the next paragraph there is no penalty? That makes zero sense. PROOFREAD YOUR NOTES YOU HACKS!

[MrHat]

Ugh, that makes me hot for pvp again.

Must buy heartseeker!

Edit: Just looking at the ranks for loots and it seems you can't buy any weapons before being absolutely last rank where you can then purchase a purple item.  That's ghetto.  I don't want to spend 40 hours raiding some place trying to get a weapon so I can be more competitive in PvP.

[Threash]

Dishonorable kills in pvp would lead to griefing much worse than high levels killing newbies.  Punishing you for killing someone on the other team who can scout, report your position, do quests to help in battlegrounds, heal, and a million other things lower levels can do would be insanely retarded.  They said they would have dishorable kills in pvp before launch, then they actually tested it and realized how fucking stupid that would be and took it out, i don't see why anyone would complain about that or think its a bad idea.

[HaemishM]

No PC's killed are considered dishonorable kills. A level 60 may get no reward, but gets no penalty for repeatedly ganking a level 1. Way to combat grief there, asstards.

[Threash]

No PC's killed are considered dishonorable kills. A level 60 may get no reward, but gets no penalty for repeatedly ganking a level 1. Way to combat grief there, asstards.

How would you plan to combat the grief a lvl 1 throw away char that knows he can't be killed would cause?  Seriously, getting killed in pvp IS NOT GRIEFING.

[Paelos]

No PC's killed are considered dishonorable kills. A level 60 may get no reward, but gets no penalty for repeatedly ganking a level 1. Way to combat grief there, asstards.

How would you plan to combat the grief a lvl 1 throw away char that knows he can't be killed would cause?  Seriously, getting killed in pvp IS NOT GRIEFING.

In the Battlegrounds, killing anybody and everybody should be ok. I think dishonorable kills should be important outside of that scenario. Like a bunch of 60s rolling into the newbie zone and wiping out the lvl 5's. That's NOT PvP that's an intentional grief.

[HaemishM]

Yes, it can be. The "grief" a level 1 could cause is minor compared to what a level 60 can do to a level 1. Fuck scouting, that's a poor excuse. You can KILL the level 1, even if it was a dishonorable kill, so he's not immune. And killing him isn't in anyway a challenge to the level 60.

But if you really want to get pissy about "scouting" or whatever, just make it so that it scales based on zone. If the level 1 Alliance character is sitting in the middle of Ogrimmar, the level 60 gets no dishonor; after all, the level 1 made it to the home city of the enemy and could be dangerous. If the level 1 Alliance character is in Alliance territory, the level 60 gets full dishonorable kill points, because he has gone beyond war and is actively slaughtering the populace of little baby kittens who cannot hurt him.

[Threash]

Yes, it can be. The "grief" a level 1 could cause is minor compared to what a level 60 can do to a level 1. Fuck scouting, that's a poor excuse. You can KILL the level 1, even if it was a dishonorable kill, so he's not immune. And killing him isn't in anyway a challenge to the level 60.

But if you really want to get pissy about "scouting" or whatever, just make it so that it scales based on zone. If the level 1 Alliance character is sitting in the middle of Ogrimmar, the level 60 gets no dishonor; after all, the level 1 made it to the home city of the enemy and could be dangerous. If the level 1 Alliance character is in Alliance territory, the level 60 gets full dishonorable kill points, because he has gone beyond war and is actively slaughtering the populace of little baby kittens who cannot hurt him.

You can't attack newbies in their homelands already, you can safely level to 20+ without worrying about being pvped at all, maybe 25-30 if you take advatange of every races home lands.  On pvp servers you can only be killed on contested lands, if you don't think thats more than enough protection from "griefing" then i don't know what is.  Punishing one kind of "griefing" while encouraging others won't solve anything in the long run. 

[MrHat]

Yes, it can be. The "grief" a level 1 could cause is minor compared to what a level 60 can do to a level 1. Fuck scouting, that's a poor excuse. You can KILL the level 1, even if it was a dishonorable kill, so he's not immune. And killing him isn't in anyway a challenge to the level 60.

But if you really want to get pissy about "scouting" or whatever, just make it so that it scales based on zone. If the level 1 Alliance character is sitting in the middle of Ogrimmar, the level 60 gets no dishonor; after all, the level 1 made it to the home city of the enemy and could be dangerous. If the level 1 Alliance character is in Alliance territory, the level 60 gets full dishonorable kill points, because he has gone beyond war and is actively slaughtering the populace of little baby kittens who cannot hurt him.

Excellent.

[Kageru]

It still looks like points scored are primarily based on percentage damage done, with some flowover into the group. Unless that is carefully balanced it could easily act as a disincentive to grouping and a strong reason to play high DPS characters. As if PvP needed more rogues.

[Threash]

It still looks like points scored are primarily based on percentage damage done, with some flowover into the group. Unless that is carefully balanced it could easily act as a disincentive to grouping and a strong reason to play high DPS characters. As if PvP needed more rogues.

From what i understood damage done only determined how much of the honor each group got, now how much each member of the group got. 

[Margalis]

You guys do realize that the honor system has basically nothing to do with PvP right?

It's PvNPC honor system. That wasn't the goal, but they screwed up and never had a workable plan. A real PvP honor system is a hard thing to get right - something they realized well after they announced it.

It's stupid. Just give people battlegrounds already. Reatarded complex rules that only relate to killing NPCs way down the wrong path.

[Trippy]

Edit: Just looking at the ranks for loots and it seems you can't buy any weapons before being absolutely last rank where you can then purchase a purple item.  That's ghetto.  I don't want to spend 40 hours raiding some place trying to get a weapon so I can be more competitive in PvP.

Not to mention if you stop playing for a period of time you no longer will be able to wield that weapon plus any of number of lower ranked rewards depending on how long you stopped.

[Trippy]

You guys do realize that the honor system has basically nothing to do with PvP right?

It's PvNPC honor system. That wasn't the goal, but they screwed up and never had a workable plan. A real PvP honor system is a hard thing to get right - something they realized well after they announced it.

As we have mentioned before, when you kill other players or aggressive PvP-enabled non-player characters (NPCs) in your level range, you will receive an honorable kill.

Emphasis mine.

[El Gallo]

As we have mentioned before, when you kill other players or aggressive PvP-enabled non-player characters (NPCs) in your level range, you will receive an honorable kill.

Emphasis mine.

Still, the vast majority of the honor points that will ever be made will be made from killing factioned NPCs.

Personally, the whole "if you stop catassing you can no longer use your sword of asswhoopage" makes the whole system crap to me.  I don't mind catassing to kill the dragon for the sword of asswhoopage, but if you tell me that if I ever take a break from catassing I won't be able to use that sword again, I'll shove that sword up Rob Pardo's ass.

[Paelos]

As we have mentioned before, when you kill other players or aggressive PvP-enabled non-player characters (NPCs) in your level range, you will receive an honorable kill.

Emphasis mine.

Still, the vast majority of the honor points that will ever be made will be made from killing factioned NPCs.

Personally, the whole "if you stop catassing you can no longer use your sword of asswhoopage" makes the whole system crap to me.  I don't mind catassing to kill the dragon for the sword of asswhoopage, but if you tell me that if I ever take a break from catassing I won't be able to use that sword again, I'll shove that sword up Rob Pardo's ass.

I disagree to an extent. I think the ranks should be hard to attain in points, but they should have a much lower amount of points necessary to hold at that rank on a weekly basis. That way players don't all just become master commander uber rank. It makes rank actually mean something instead of just being another level. For example, take SWG. With enough points every grunt could be a general. However, it was in name only as the ranks meant essentially nothing.

[Ironwood]

Question - What's to prevent alts from making this system worthless ?

(and by alts I also include a mate with a character on the 'other side')

I have ready this and for the most part it's baffling - the rest is just a repeat of the same ole mistakes.

[jpark]

This does provide another incentive to go into opposing faction cities and attack.  Without these incentives you would so simply because your an RP person or looking to grief some lowbies by taking out the banker.

I like it.

[Paelos]

Question - What's to prevent alts from making this system worthless ?

(and by alts I also include a mate with a character on the 'other side')

I have ready this and for the most part it's baffling - the rest is just a repeat of the same ole mistakes.

There is a diminishing returns code that decreases points granted for killing the same character again and again.

[Calantus]

As we have mentioned before, when you kill other players or aggressive PvP-enabled non-player characters (NPCs) in your level range, you will receive an honorable kill.

Emphasis mine.

Still, the vast majority of the honor points that will ever be made will be made from killing factioned NPCs.

Personally, the whole "if you stop catassing you can no longer use your sword of asswhoopage" makes the whole system crap to me.  I don't mind catassing to kill the dragon for the sword of asswhoopage, but if you tell me that if I ever take a break from catassing I won't be able to use that sword again, I'll shove that sword up Rob Pardo's ass.

I disagree to an extent. I think the ranks should be hard to attain in points, but they should have a much lower amount of points necessary to hold at that rank on a weekly basis. That way players don't all just become master commander uber rank. It makes rank actually mean something instead of just being another level. For example, take SWG. With enough points every grunt could be a general. However, it was in name only as the ranks meant essentially nothing.

I agree... and I disagree. Your rank should definately go down if you stop catassing. It's the only way to keep on rewarding players after X amount of time, otherwise certain people will monopolize the system for eternity. The problem is losing the ability to use the items you earned... that part sucks the nut. I guess then you lose the incentive to keep on PVPing for loot, but you could always add in some limited charges trinkets/items that are both unique and bind on pickup to alleviate it. It's always better to not be able to get more goodies because of being slack than losing hard-earned permanent items.

Overall though it looks to be a good start, and once it is in they can tweak it.

[MrHat]

I agree... and I disagree. Your rank should definately go down if you stop catassing. It's the only way to keep on rewarding players after X amount of time, otherwise certain people will monopolize the system for eternity. The problem is losing the ability to use the items you earned... that part sucks the nut. I guess then you lose the incentive to keep on PVPing for loot, but you could always add in some limited charges trinkets/items that are both unique and bind on pickup to alleviate it. It's always better to not be able to get more goodies because of being slack than losing hard-earned permanent items.

Overall though it looks to be a good start, and once it is in they can tweak it.

I was thinking add some kick ass perishables or more of the banner stuff, when you lose rank you can't use them anymore.

But not your weapon.

[Paelos]

I was thinking add some kick ass perishables or more of the banner stuff, when you lose rank you can't use them anymore.

But not your weapon.

Again, I disagree. What is the point of having the ranks if for nothing else than to access this content like weapons. If you don't keep a moving requirement people will just grind to the top and then stop.

[MrHat]

I was thinking add some kick ass perishables or more of the banner stuff, when you lose rank you can't use them anymore.

But not your weapon.

Again, I disagree. What is the point of having the ranks if for nothing else than to access this content like weapons. If you don't keep a moving requirement people will just grind to the top and then stop.

I thought the only reason that items were offered was so that someone who wanted to PvE in the game for items could, and someone who didn't want to PvE could get them through PvP.  If I get the items through PvE, then I get to keep them and use them whenever I want.  But with PvP (epic weapon last rank .01 of pop), I don't get to keep them if I go off line for a few days (I'm sure the catasstry required for this is becomes greater with each rank).

[Sky]

If you don't keep a moving requirement people will just grind to the top and then stop.

Yes...must keep grinding forever....

More linear time-based advancement systems! Woohoo!

Battlegrounds sound great until I start reading into the details of stupid shit like this. Then I remember that it is indeed a mmog, and as long as people are designing them around timetards I'll have nothing but bile for them.

[Alkiera]

I was thinking add some kick ass perishables or more of the banner stuff, when you lose rank you can't use them anymore.

But not your weapon.

Again, I disagree. What is the point of having the ranks if for nothing else than to access this content like weapons. If you don't keep a moving requirement people will just grind to the top and then stop.

So, you're saying, that if you get an uber weapon from Onyxia, you should then have to kill her every week, or you stop being able to use it?

I like this plan, but then, I hate raiding.

Alkiera

[Calantus]

I was thinking add some kick ass perishables or more of the banner stuff, when you lose rank you can't use them anymore.

But not your weapon.

Again, I disagree. What is the point of having the ranks if for nothing else than to access this content like weapons. If you don't keep a moving requirement people will just grind to the top and then stop.

Well... Mr Hat and I both suggested perishables/limited use items that you would need the higher ranks to purchase. As long as you are limited in how many you can have you will need to keep your rank in order to use them in any regular fashion (ie. you can't just buy 50 stacks, bank them, then stop fighting). Mr Hat also added the banner idea, which is to say that fluff items can be taken from you if you don't maintain the rank, which wouldn't hurt anywhere near as much as losing your sword. Also, you underestimate the worth of the rank itself to many people.

[Threash]

I don't understand why some people are acting like ranks = levels and pvp = grinding.  Shouldn't the fact that 99.9% of the population won't reach the last rank by design remove any desire to grind for it? you wont be president of the alliance, sorry.  Pvp, have fun, and take whatever rank your catassery level deserves.

[Margalis]

As we have mentioned before, when you kill other players or aggressive PvP-enabled non-player characters (NPCs) in your level range, you will receive an honorable kill.

Emphasis mine.

But you can't lose honor by killing other players. It's just a counter. Here, let me program it for you:

if (you.killed(otherGuy))
 honor++

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intention of the honor system. I'm also pretty sure that the honor system is virtually interchangeable with a kill count system. If you can't lose honor directly, the way you lose honor is by not killing as often as the next guy.

The penalty is not in being "dishonorable." It's in not killing often enough.

It has nothing to do with honor at all. It's just kill stat counting that has nothing to do with the original intention.