Level One Lunatic: A Complete Misunderstanding of What PvP Is

[Nemetth1]

Good afternoon, community. I’d like to bring up a topic that I believe is significant and still can’t quite understand—specifically, the reasoning behind implementing such a challenge/objective that creates an undesirable environment for the vast majority of players while providing questionable enjoyment for a small minority.

While I find the Level One Lunatic challenge interesting in contexts like Battlegrounds or real PvP—where there’s a fair balance of power between opponents—I can’t wrap my head around the idea that the GMs’ true intention is to foster the current scenario.

Hey there!

Spawn camping and corpse camping are allowed, as PvP is optional and players can choose to opt out. This isn’t considered griefing or anything like that. You’re free to camp starting zones all day long if you want to.

In other words: I cannot comprehend, from any possible angle, how having a level 1 character with level 60 enchants endlessly killing freshly created characters—while using "PvP is optional" as a valid excuse from the server’s leadership—is acceptable.

I believe this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what PvP is and isn’t. A character one-shotting others isn’t PvP—it’s systematized bullying. For PvP to exist, there MUST be at least some semblance of a fair fight between opponents. It’s the same distinction we’d make in the real world between war and invasion. If the victim has no means to defend themselves, it’s not PvP—it’s simply bullying.

Some might argue: "Well, if a level 60 character kills you while you’re leveling, it’s the same thing." But no, it’s not the same. While my previous argument might seem to apply here as well, allow me to highlight a subtle difference. In that scenario, the player has options: rezzing stealthily and using Hearthstone, rezzing at the angel, or even asking a Warlock for a summon. But for a freshly created level 1 character, none of these options exist when they’re systematically ganked just meters from their spawn point.

My proposal: Remove this dynamic. It’s not fun. It’s not okay. It encourages a despicable social behavior. Implement a restriction preventing attacks on characters below level 5. This would protect genuinely new players while preserving free PvP for those who already have basic tools.

Regards!

This isn’t a rage post: I haven’t created level 1 characters in a long time, but I constantly hear complaints from new players trying to start and encountering this situation.

[Wsta]

Good afternoon!
i recently started playing in this server, after carefully reading about rules - features and challenges
i didn't enabled that WarMode challenge
and nobody could kill - harass or even touch me
Have fun!

[Tinyplease]

It's a gimmick challenge that incentivizes nothing fun for anybody. Requires only grinding and no skill. It's like it was fake PvP made for raid loggers.

[galapagos]

yeah. imagine being a new player. you log in, make your character, now looking at challenges option. war mode seems fun. you always liked world pvp as its some of the most memorable content especially while leveling. you pop into elwynn forest and thing first you see is a person wearing hogger illusion one shotting you. over and over for some stupid title. this server does two things well. it has huge pop and no rmt/cheaters. everything else is pretty much ass and changing for worse.

[HAGOV Tortuga]

This is how I want to see you, from:Nemetth1—just like this, with mastery, you carried out an interview. Full of wisdom and knowledge, you brought forth applause and moved me to tears.
You are the only one who truly loves your server and its people. You deserve great health, strength, and to be the president of the Turtle Republic!!

[StabsMcKenzy]

Howdy there, Nem! This is a well written post. I believe I can provide some clarity for you though.

"creates an undesirable environment for the vast majority of players while providing questionable enjoyment for a small minority."

In my experience this isn't the case at all. Most people simply don't interact with the pvp on Turtle wow. And the Lunatics who do the challenge generally have a lot of fun with it.


"While I find the Level One Lunatic challenge interesting in contexts like Battlegrounds or real PvP—where there’s a fair balance of power between opponents—I can’t wrap my head around the idea that the GMs’ true intention is to foster the current scenario."

What's the difference between a lvl 1 with no gear queuing for a bg and a lvl 1 with no gear opting in for pvp? Surely you're not saying that a no gear lvl 1 stands a chance against a lvl 1 twink. Personally, as long as everyone is consenting I don't think there's an issue, if a no gear lvl 1 wants to bg, who am I to them they can't?


"I believe this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what PvP is and isn’t. A character one-shotting others isn’t PvP—it’s systematized bullying. For PvP to exist, there MUST be at least some semblance of a fair fight between opponents. It’s the same distinction we’d make in the real world between war and invasion. If the victim has no means to defend themselves, it’s not PvP—it’s simply bullying."

This is probably the biggest point. You believe that if a fight is unfair, that it's not pvp. You'd, technically, be incorrect. PvP directly stands for player vs player, not player vs player but with fairness. The closest thing to what you're speaking about is called Competitive PvP, and that's where balance and fairness come into play. There's a common misconception that vanilla wow had competitive pvp, it doesn't though. Competitive pvp wasn't introduced until Burning Crusade through the Arena System.


"Some might argue: "Well, if a level 60 character kills you while you’re leveling, it’s the same thing." But no, it’s not the same. While my previous argument might seem to apply here as well, allow me to highlight a subtle difference. In that scenario, the player has options: rezzing stealthily and using Hearthstone, rezzing at the angel, or even asking a Warlock for a summon. But for a freshly created level 1 character, none of these options exist when they’re systematically ganked just meters from their spawn point."

Those players can simply deflag or in the case of warmoders they can corpse hop over to a battlemaster to deactivate warmode, or simply go to another area to level. There's always options, and opting out of pvp is a valid one. To your point though, this challenge is different on a pvp server because of how flagging works so Tel'abim is always an option for players who want a slightly more balanced approach to lvl 1 anti-ganking.


"My proposal: Remove this dynamic. It’s not fun. It’s not okay. It encourages a despicable social behavior. Implement a restriction preventing attacks on characters below level 5. This would protect genuinely new players while preserving free PvP for those who already have basic tools."

Not that I have any say but I certainly hope they don't remove it. It is fun, it is okay as it's all consensual. It doesn't encourage despicable social behavior, there's no advantage given to players who are rude or break rules. Tel'abim has the resrictions you speak of, in a way, so you could try playing there. New players are already protected on Nord as they have to opt in to pvp.


While I'm sure the complaints are annoying, the solution is incredibly simple and widely available so you have to wonder how justified those complaints really are.

[Xudo]

^^ This is how pedophiles justify their sick mentality.

Of course lunatics have a lot of fun with that. Killing without any chance of retaliation is fun for SPECIAL people.
Problem is that it is absolutely not fun for all others.
"If you tired of dying then corpse-hop to battlemaster" is some kind of insane joke, right? How many hops you need to get to battlemaster in capital city? Where should you get info that this option ever exists? I think it is better to just delete your lvl 5 character and make another one.

People here asking for competitive pvp while turtle delivers griefing-style pvp. This misunderstanding is main pain point of whole community vs server rulers. It is not only about lunatics though.

Worst thing about lunatics is that they abuse high level enchants on low level gear. Those enchants make them literally unkillable for any player of that level. high level enchants on low level gear should be nerfed.
When they will be nerfed, it would be totally fine to see some guys ganking in starting locations. Lunatics might get small advantage over normal players, but they won't be so overwhelmengly powerful.

[StabsMcKenzy]

^^ This is how pedophiles justify their sick mentality.

Of course lunatics have a lot of fun with that. Killing without any chance of retaliation is fun for SPECIAL people.
Problem is that it is absolutely not fun for all others.
"If you tired of dying then corpse-hop to battlemaster" is some kind of insane joke, right? How many hops you need to get to battlemaster in capital city? Where should you get info that this option ever exists? I think it is better to just delete your lvl 5 character and make another one.

People here asking for competitive pvp while turtle delivers griefing-style pvp. This misunderstanding is main pain point of whole community vs server rulers. It is not only about lunatics though.

Worst thing about lunatics is that they abuse high level enchants on low level gear. Those enchants make them literally unkillable for any player of that level. high level enchants on low level gear should be nerfed.
When they will be nerfed, it would be totally fine to see some guys ganking in starting locations. Lunatics might get small advantage over normal players, but they won't be so overwhelmengly powerful.

Comparing wow pvp to pedophilia... You need help man. Maybe it's a language barrier thing but I think you're so mad about something you can do nothing about that you're confusing scale and definition. If you want to have a serious conversation about wow pvp we can but this isn't even an argument you're presenting, you're just throwing out shit bait. It's no wonder GM's laugh when you name is brought up in conversation.

Seriously though, you need help. https://www.betterhelp.com/ If you can't afford it, reach out to me and I'll see what I can do for you man.

[Drubarrymooer]

^^ This is how pedophiles justify their sick mentality.

Huh? I totally agree with Stabs. That's a really messed up leap in logic.

[Xudo]

If you want to have a serious conversation about wow pvp we can

You writing like you entitled to some hidden gm chat. But you are just another clown who is situationaly fit some favoured niche of players.

It is just sad that twow devs decided to favor small group of griefers instead of large group of competitive pvp enjoyers.

[Caos]

"I believe this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what PvP is and isn’t. A character one-shotting others isn’t PvP—it’s systematized bullying. For PvP to exist, there MUST be at least some semblance of a fair fight between opponents. It’s the same distinction we’d make in the real world between war and invasion. If the victim has no means to defend themselves, it’s not PvP—it’s simply bullying."

This is probably the biggest point. You believe that if a fight is unfair, that it's not pvp. You'd, technically, be incorrect. PvP directly stands for player vs player, not player vs player but with fairness. The closest thing to what you're speaking about is called Competitive PvP, and that's where balance and fairness come into play. There's a common misconception that vanilla wow had competitive pvp, it doesn't though. Competitive pvp wasn't introduced until Burning Crusade through the Arena System.

There is a diference between a game being unbalanced (which may be fun) and having a 0% chance to win, and it makes no sense at all to encourage the second scenario.
And yes, killing a player over and over when he cannot possibly fight back is literally bullying and should not be rewarded. In classic WoW players give less honor for each consecutive kill for example.

[StabsMcKenzy]

If you want to have a serious conversation about wow pvp we can

You writing like you entitled to some hidden gm chat. But you are just another clown who is situationaly fit some favoured niche of players.

It is just sad that twow devs decided to favor small group of griefers instead of large group of competitive pvp enjoyers.

There's nothing sad about the gms embracing a part of the community. That having been said for someone who has posted as much as you have yet have amounted to nothing in terms of changes, how are you not tired of crying into the void in front of an audience?
If you ever want to evolve a bit and have a serious conversation about lvl 1 pvp balance we can, but I'm like 98% sure the devs aren't going to want to do lvl 1 pvp balancing before balancing pvp in general.

[StabsMcKenzy]

"I believe this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what PvP is and isn’t. A character one-shotting others isn’t PvP—it’s systematized bullying. For PvP to exist, there MUST be at least some semblance of a fair fight between opponents. It’s the same distinction we’d make in the real world between war and invasion. If the victim has no means to defend themselves, it’s not PvP—it’s simply bullying."

This is probably the biggest point. You believe that if a fight is unfair, that it's not pvp. You'd, technically, be incorrect. PvP directly stands for player vs player, not player vs player but with fairness. The closest thing to what you're speaking about is called Competitive PvP, and that's where balance and fairness come into play. There's a common misconception that vanilla wow had competitive pvp, it doesn't though. Competitive pvp wasn't introduced until Burning Crusade through the Arena System.

There is a diference between a game being unbalanced (which may be fun) and having a 0% chance to win, and it makes no sense at all to encourage the second scenario.
And yes, killing a player over and over when he cannot possibly fight back is literally bullying and should not be rewarded. In classic WoW players give less honor for each consecutive kill for example.

The same applies at lvl 60 though, so you sound like you're talking about pvp balance over all not just at lvl 1. I do agree there needs to be changed on that front though, resilience would be nice.
Killing a player over and over when they are specifically queueing for PVP is not bullying. Warmode is a wpvp queue. We currently also get less honor per kill, but since we want kills not honor it's not a big deal to us, however after 10 kills you no longer get kills either so we're essentially capped at 10 kills per player per hour since their last death to you.

[Akos1896]

If we worry about imbalance between lvl 1 levelers (?) and lvl 1 twinks, locking up enchants based on their effect behind specific levels would help a lot, both in the open world and in instances.
That's just my restrictive judgement but I think that things like plus 30 spell damage enchant on a level 1 literal walking staff are wrong.

For the challenge itself - universally disabling PVP in the spawning zones would be a good choice imo. F.ex. you can gank in Durotar but not in the Valley of Trials.

[funeh]

I always play on warmode and i never complain about being ganked, but i agree that all spawn zones (like Nortshire), or maybe even all whole starting zones (like Elwyn Forest), should have PVP wholly disabled. I also have lvl 1 lunatic.

[StabsMcKenzy]

If we made it so people couldn't take warmode until they go get it in their major city then blocking starting zones from pvp would make sense.If you're going to get a 20% xp boost, there should be draw backs.

[galapagos]

for the context, that stabbymckenzie guys spends many hours a week ganking lowbies in elwynn on his lvl 1 twink keep it in my when reading his mental gymnastics

[StabsMcKenzy]

for the context, that stabbymckenzie guys spends many hours a week ganking lowbies in elwynn on his lvl 1 twink keep it in my when reading his mental gymnastics

I do a little more than that. It was 100kills a day for like 4 months. I also run a guild of nearly 200 lunatics, all helping each other. How many communities have you built/run on twow? If you're going to talk shit you should at least give me full credit =D

[Azcron]

Just my two sense but maybe make it to where they need to kill players lvl 10+ to actually get rewarded a kill. So killing anyone below lvl 10 they would get nothing. I mean there's 0 challenge in killing fresh players in starting zones. That seems more challenging and I've seen it done so it's not impossible.

[Cysthen]

Honestly I always see other players laugh emoting when we kill warmode flagged players so I think many people find enjoyment out of it. Literally 2 corpse hops and you get far enough away to go unflag at town. I think you all severely are exaggerating the corpse camping happening. Typically we are running around randomly looking for others not literally sitting on a corpse ready to pop expensive 10+ gold Rocket Boots. That just doesn't happen.

[Caos]

"I believe this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what PvP is and isn’t. A character one-shotting others isn’t PvP—it’s systematized bullying. For PvP to exist, there MUST be at least some semblance of a fair fight between opponents. It’s the same distinction we’d make in the real world between war and invasion. If the victim has no means to defend themselves, it’s not PvP—it’s simply bullying."

This is probably the biggest point. You believe that if a fight is unfair, that it's not pvp. You'd, technically, be incorrect. PvP directly stands for player vs player, not player vs player but with fairness. The closest thing to what you're speaking about is called Competitive PvP, and that's where balance and fairness come into play. There's a common misconception that vanilla wow had competitive pvp, it doesn't though. Competitive pvp wasn't introduced until Burning Crusade through the Arena System.

There is a diference between a game being unbalanced (which may be fun) and having a 0% chance to win, and it makes no sense at all to encourage the second scenario.
And yes, killing a player over and over when he cannot possibly fight back is literally bullying and should not be rewarded. In classic WoW players give less honor for each consecutive kill for example.

The same applies at lvl 60 though, so you sound like you're talking about pvp balance over all not just at lvl 1. I do agree there needs to be changed on that front though, resilience would be nice.
Killing a player over and over when they are specifically queueing for PVP is not bullying. Warmode is a wpvp queue. We currently also get less honor per kill, but since we want kills not honor it's not a big deal to us, however after 10 kills you no longer get kills either so we're essentially capped at 10 kills per player per hour since their last death to you.

The same applies to level 60 and there should be some rebalance there.
Lets be real, absolutely noone taking warmode challenge is expecting to get killed 10 times by a level 1 twink in the starting zone (because its ridiculous). And although without the lunatic challenge this could keep happening its pretty ridiculous to make a challenge that incentivizes it.
Getting killed 10 times in a row its still too much.
The 10.000 kills challenge should be reworked to some token that drops on players killed and the drop chance should vary depending on the level (not droping at too low levels at all except for other lunatics) and the time since the last kill.
And killing some player over and over is bulling. Bulling never looks like bulling for the bully. Its the same that camping the enemy team in wsg gy when yours is way more geared or a premade. I don't think this kind of behaviour should be encouraged by a challenge.

[StabsMcKenzy]

There is a diference between a game being unbalanced (which may be fun) and having a 0% chance to win, and it makes no sense at all to encourage the second scenario.
And yes, killing a player over and over when he cannot possibly fight back is literally bullying and should not be rewarded. In classic WoW players give less honor for each consecutive kill for example.

The same applies at lvl 60 though, so you sound like you're talking about pvp balance over all not just at lvl 1. I do agree there needs to be changed on that front though, resilience would be nice.
Killing a player over and over when they are specifically queueing for PVP is not bullying. Warmode is a wpvp queue. We currently also get less honor per kill, but since we want kills not honor it's not a big deal to us, however after 10 kills you no longer get kills either so we're essentially capped at 10 kills per player per hour since their last death to you.

The same applies to level 60 and there should be some rebalance there.
Lets be real, absolutely noone taking warmode challenge is expecting to get killed 10 times by a level 1 twink in the starting zone (because its ridiculous). And although without the lunatic challenge this could keep happening its pretty ridiculous to make a challenge that incentivizes it.
Getting killed 10 times in a row its still too much.
The 10.000 kills challenge should be reworked to some token that drops on players killed and the drop chance should vary depending on the level (not droping at too low levels at all except for other lunatics) and the time since the last kill.
And killing some player over and over is bulling. Bulling never looks like bulling for the bully. Its the same that camping the enemy team in wsg gy when yours is way more geared or a premade. I don't think this kind of behaviour should be encouraged by a challenge.

Expecting to be killed, and being aware that you CAN be killed are two different things. I think it's okay that they don't expect it, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. I'd rather they incentivize level 1s doing it than lvl 60s. There's nothing wrong with getting killed 10 times, hell even 100, if that's what you signed up for. I don't join a BG then cry about getting GY camped, I just wait out or leave the bg.
Some kind of token system might be cool? But it feels like a cumbersome solution. I'm sure someone could come up with something better and less intrusive.
By your definition of bullying, all pvp is bullying. If two people willingly engage in a fight, are they both bullies or just the person who wins? Do you not consider signing up for a battlegrounds to be consent for pvp? Is warmode not also signing up for w pvp? Hell, if camping a graveyard is bullying then teams of professionals who use that as a strat for rated BG's in retail are also bullies. I think if we're going to talk about social issues we should really nail down what defines a word, because you just throwing the word around really undermines people who are ACTUALLY getting bullied.
On a side note, when ganking I do my best to be as polite and understanding as possible. I encourage my guilds lunatics to do the same. The reality is that some people sign up to get hit because they think the 20% is worth what few times they might die, then get super mad when they die. Tbf, even dying 100 times early on would be worth the time saved when lvling from 40-60 with a 20% xp bonus.

[Caos]

A lot of mental gymnastics here.

Expecting to be killed, and being aware that you CAN be killed are two different things. I think it's okay that they don't expect it, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. I'd rather they incentivize level 1s doing it than lvl 60s. There's nothing wrong with getting killed 10 times, hell even 100, if that's what you signed up for. I don't join a BG then cry about getting GY camped, I just wait out or leave the bg.

You are using some false dycotomy. Why the hell do you need to incentivize level 1 twinks to corpse camp new players? The level 60s incentivation doesn't exist, never existed that I know and it is just weird to bring up here. The real issue is not this happening is that exists a challenge that incentivizes by making camping low levels this the most efficient way to complete said challenge.

By your definition of bullying, all pvp is bullying. If two people willingly engage in a fight, are they both bullies or just the person who wins? Do you not consider signing up for a battlegrounds to be consent for pvp? Is warmode not also signing up for w pvp? Hell, if camping a graveyard is bullying then teams of professionals who use that as a strat for rated BG's in retail are also bullies.

Definition of bullying I got in a quick search : seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).
Here the key is clearly attacking someone vulnerable (that cannot defend himself)
Comparing some lvl 1 player that just creating his character being ganked by a twink with 2 teams playing a ranked match is ridiculous.
Don't know what the hell is your obsesion with this consent crap. Consent may be an argument to GMs not intervining or not punishing certain behaviours. This is not about that, its about a stupid as challenge incentivizing stupid ass fights.
In World PvP there will always be uneven fights, its the nature of the game but it does make zero sense to create a goal that consist on wining 10.000 of that kind of fights.

I think if we're going to talk about social issues we should really nail down what defines a word, because you just throwing the word around really undermines people who are ACTUALLY getting bullied.

This kind of arguments are fucking pathetic. Like if it did some harm to bullied people irl that I talked about bullying in a game. Also there are a lot of diferent magnitudes on bullying (and almost everything in life) and using the same word to define multiple cases doesn't mean they are the same magnitude.
Anyway the real issue with this challenge is that it incentivizes a totally unbalanced fight, and although these kind of fights may happen anyway that's not an argument to them further, the opposite should be done if posible.

[silvatide]

if you don't want to engage in wpvp, don't turn on warmode

if you already turned on warmode and regret that decision, turn it off at a battlemaster in any major city

if you just wanted 20% bonus exp for free without engaging with the world pvp, that's a you problem

it's kind of weird to turn on pvp mode and then get mad because someone did pvp with you

[Templar85]

A new player first experience shouldn't be that they got insta corpse camped after the loading screen in the starting zones. Twink geared lunatics should not allowed to kill players below lvl 8. When a non lunatic player reaches lvl 8 they should receive a message that they can be a target for lunatics.

[Atreidon]

This isssue is pesented to you by Warmode™

Warmode™ just like the open world pvp you know and love. But now with 70% more frustrating ganks you cant do anything about!

[Drubarrymooer]

A new player first experience shouldn't be that they got insta corpse camped after the loading screen in the starting zones. Twink geared lunatics should not allowed to kill players below lvl 8. When a non lunatic player reaches lvl 8 they should receive a message that they can be a target for lunatics.

Sounds like a good compromise. I'm conflicted about the whole issue. On one side, I get PVP twinking and know it's a lot of fun. However, I know it's not so fun being on the receiving end. So I try not to camp unless they're being rude in whispers.

I definitely think WM xp bonus should be removed from WM because it causes so many problems. E.g. I was out herbing in arathi and someone I killed twice (~30 mins between kills) called me a bunch of names and when I simply replied "WM" they called me a bunch more names and then said "I took it for the fat xp dumbass". Not the worst thing on the internet for sure, but it absolutely does have a negative affect on some.

But yeah, I'm all for lunatics beating up other lunatics or even people who actually know what they're in for are taking. I think ~8 lvl or other restriction or notification might be in order.

[StabsMcKenzy]

I suppose the English language can be seen as gymnastics when you don't understand it well.

[/quote]
You are using some false dycotomy. Why the hell do you need to incentivize level 1 twinks to corpse camp new players? The level 60s incentivation doesn't exist, never existed that I know and it is just weird to bring up here. The real issue is not this happening is that exists a challenge that incentivizes by making camping low levels this the most efficient way to complete said challenge.
[/quote]

Calling it a false dichotomy just goes to show your lack of understanding about the situation, and not even just because you mispelled it. You think camping Northshire is the most effective way but it's not, it's just the easiest to do with bad twink gear. I get WAY more kills roaming than I do camping starter zones.

[/quote]
Definition of bullying I got in a quick search : seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).
Here the key is clearly attacking someone vulnerable (that cannot defend himself)
Comparing some lvl 1 player that just creating his character being ganked by a twink with 2 teams playing a ranked match is ridiculous.
Don't know what the hell is your obsesion with this consent crap. Consent may be an argument to GMs not intervining or not punishing certain behaviours. This is not about that, its about a stupid as challenge incentivizing stupid ass fights.
In World PvP there will always be uneven fights, its the nature of the game but it does make zero sense to create a goal that consist on wining 10.000 of that kind of fights.
[/quote]

The thing you're forgetting is these lowbies aren't randomly vulnerable, THEY CHOSE TO BE VULNERABLE. You're excusing them of their will and choice. Also surprise surprise some guy on the internet doesn't care or understand why others care about consent, or why it's important when assigning blame. The challenge doesn't specifically say "go kill in a starter zone", it just so happens that if you're on the lower gear spectrum it's easier for you.


[/quote]
This kind of arguments are fucking pathetic. Like if it did some harm to bullied people irl that I talked about bullying in a game. Also there are a lot of different magnitudes on bullying (and almost everything in life) and using the same word to define multiple cases doesn't mean they are the same magnitude.
Anyway the real issue with this challenge is that it incentivizes a totally unbalanced fight, and although these kind of fights may happen anyway that's not an argument to them further, the opposite should be done if possible.
[/quote]

Misusing a word does just that, it lowers the value of it. If you think two people agreeing to pvp makes the winner a bully then clearly you're confused on what the word means, much like your use of dichotomy.

[SvenS2]

A new player first experience shouldn't be that they got insta corpse camped after the loading screen in the starting zones. Twink geared lunatics should not allowed to kill players below lvl 8. When a non lunatic player reaches lvl 8 they should receive a message that they can be a target for lunatics.

Reasonable solution.

To further add to the topic, it's not necessarily annoying only for Warmode players. When I started, I noticed several twinks standing in front of mobs, with the purpose of you misclicking and attacking them instead. Was definitely a weird introduction to the server

I like the concept behind the challenge. It's not my cup of tea, but it's interesting to have.

[Caos]

I suppose the English language can be seen as gymnastics when you don't understand it well.

Calling it a false dichotomy just goes to show your lack of understanding about the situation, and not even just because you mispelled it. You think camping Northshire is the most effective way but it's not, it's just the easiest to do with bad twink gear. I get WAY more kills roaming than I do camping starter zones.`

Excuse me if I don't carefully check my spelling before answering to some guy on a WoW forum. I think you are the one that doesn't understand what a false dichotomy is and you should do some research about it. The point is that you were justifying the existence of the challenge by using an alternative scenario that wouldn't necesarily happen if the challenge wouldn't exist. (better level 1 twinks that level 60s)

The thing you're forgetting is these lowbies aren't randomly vulnerable, THEY CHOSE TO BE VULNERABLE. You're excusing them of their will and choice. Also surprise surprise some guy on the internet doesn't care or understand why others care about consent, or why it's important when assigning blame. The challenge doesn't specifically say "go kill in a starter zone", it just so happens that if you're on the lower gear spectrum it's easier for you.

This consent gibberish here doesn't make much sense as the issue is if the challenge should exist rather than if you should be allowed to kill lowbies without a GM stoping you. I'm not blaming or excusing anyone I'm saying this challenge is stupid because it causes a lot of undesirable situations.

What the challenge "says" doesn't matter, the important is what it causes. And it is clearly causing "go kill in a starter zone" in a lot of cases.

Misusing a word does just that, it lowers the value of it. If you think two people agreeing to pvp makes the winner a bully then clearly you're confused on what the word means, much like your use of dichotomy.

Explaining "one shoting a new level 1 player as a twink multiple times" as "two people agreeing to pvp" seems like a curious choice of words.

Bullying is a pretty broad concept with multiple interpretations that includes various things of a very diferent severity and honestly I don't think anyone with two braincells though that I was implying that killing lowbies on a game is somewhat close to some hardcore bullying case in real life.

To sum up, while killing some player that cannot defend himself is part of world PvP, the real issue you don't seem to respond directly to is that this challenge incentivizes this kind of undesirable gameplay and makes it more frequent.

[StabsMcKenzy]

I suppose the English language can be seen as gymnastics when you don't understand it well.

Calling it a false dichotomy just goes to show your lack of understanding about the situation, and not even just because you mispelled it. You think camping Northshire is the most effective way but it's not, it's just the easiest to do with bad twink gear. I get WAY more kills roaming than I do camping starter zones.`

Excuse me if I don't carefully check my spelling before answering to some guy on a WoW forum. I think you are the one that doesn't understand what a false dichotomy is and you should do some research about it. The point is that you were justifying the existence of the challenge by using an alternative scenario that wouldn't necesarily happen if the challenge wouldn't exist. (better level 1 twinks that level 60s)

The thing you're forgetting is these lowbies aren't randomly vulnerable, THEY CHOSE TO BE VULNERABLE. You're excusing them of their will and choice. Also surprise surprise some guy on the internet doesn't care or understand why others care about consent, or why it's important when assigning blame. The challenge doesn't specifically say "go kill in a starter zone", it just so happens that if you're on the lower gear spectrum it's easier for you.

This consent gibberish here doesn't make much sense as the issue is if the challenge should exist rather than if you should be allowed to kill lowbies without a GM stoping you. I'm not blaming or excusing anyone I'm saying this challenge is stupid because it causes a lot of undesirable situations.

What the challenge "says" doesn't matter, the important is what it causes. And it is clearly causing "go kill in a starter zone" in a lot of cases.

Misusing a word does just that, it lowers the value of it. If you think two people agreeing to pvp makes the winner a bully then clearly you're confused on what the word means, much like your use of dichotomy.

Explaining "one shoting a new level 1 player as a twink multiple times" as "two people agreeing to pvp" seems like a curious choice of words.

Bullying is a pretty broad concept with multiple interpretations that includes various things of a very diferent severity and honestly I don't think anyone with two braincells though that I was implying that killing lowbies on a game is somewhat close to some hardcore bullying case in real life.

To sum up, while killing some player that cannot defend himself is part of world PvP, the real issue you don't seem to respond directly to is that this challenge incentivizes this kind of undesirable gameplay and makes it more frequent.

It incentivizes killing players, regardless of where they are. It's all just very ironic considering your title is saying it's a misunderstanding of what pvp is, when really you're confused on what pvp means. We're the solution to free warmode xp.

[StabsMcKenzy]

I've created an image for Caos and Xudo, thought it would help them get their point across. No need to thank me.

[SvenS2]

It is just sad that twow devs decided to favor small group of griefers instead of large group of competitive pvp enjoyers.

What exactly do you mean by "competitive pvp enjoyers"? A fair challenge? That has never been the case for World PvP. A fair challenge would be battlegrounds/arena, which is why Blizz made them. Or were you implying something else?

[StabsMcKenzy]

It is just sad that twow devs decided to favor small group of griefers instead of large group of competitive pvp enjoyers.

What exactly do you mean by "competitive pvp enjoyers"? A fair challenge? That has never been the case for World PvP. A fair challenge would be battlegrounds/arena, which is why Blizz made them. Or were you implying something else?

Good luck getting an intelligent conversation/response out of him, the dude is touched in the head. He def means "fair pvp", not competitive, aka bgs/blood ring. The problem with bgs/BR on twow is that they aren't competitive. There's no ranking system and they aren't regulated (pallies can use LoH unnerfed, Druids can use Rebirth, all sorts of consumes are allowed), coupled with the fact that there's no pvp balance in the gear and no pvp dmg reduction/dampening. I would love competitive pvp but to my understanding we won't get Arena/Rated BGs until after 2.0 comes out.