Why Dishonorable Kills failed at their intended purpose

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
201

So you can get QOL of 1.12 AV and QOL of DHKs, because ~reasons~
:thinking:

Oh I see, now it is a “costs” metric.

202

we do not want progressive DHKs.

We want them to realize the game was better before they implemented DHKs and that it would make a better and more Vanilla feel to not have them.

This would essentially be the same as advocating for 10m strat/scholo.

203

You can read this whole thread and the argument against DHK’s is so thin that’s hard to tell if this is just trolling at this point or just hardheadedness.

1 Like
204

See above. I’d happily see a 1.5AV released in CP3, and a 1.12 AV released in CP6.

If they wanted to do DHKs removed for CP2, and introduced in CP3, it would be authentic, but I haven’t seen anyone asking for that. (Hint: You should be.)

1 Like
205

To be fair, they were also not in Vanilla. But it’s quite clear the devs are aiming for a straight 1.12 replication, so they’ll be in Classic.

However, the theme of this thread is still correct. Dishonorable kills didn’t do what they were intended to do. Players camping quest npcs don’t care about their honor. All dhks did was kill city raids.

So the premise of the thread is correct, but sadly irrelevant.

1 Like
206

That’s a quality of life change. Not Blizzard’s intended goal of a museum recreation.

207

the argument against DHKs are thin? Are you reading the same thread…

there are NO arguments for DHKs other than they were in Vanilla.
the problem is that same argument exists for NO DHKs.

and the arguments against DHKs are they do NO good and actively harm the game.

1 Like
208

I’m still waiting for someone to argue introducing them in CP3, which I’d agree with, but sadly they want a change, not a replication of patch data.

1 Like
209

Please go look up what QoL means…

This is not QoL. This is game systems that we feel were better in the original version, just like MOST people on this forum think 1.5 AV was better and would rather that be the version that gets put into classic.

210

Your argument is LITERALLY “This change would make my experience better, despite not being what happened”. That’s the textbook example of a Quality-of-Life change in a game.

211

The progression part of DHKs falls quite flat with a time period of no DHKs, yet after that it would be perpetual DHKs.

How about no DHKs for as long as there were no DHKs in vanilla, and then only have DHKs for the same period of time that they were in the game before being removed?

Having them perpetually enabled in a static game, when they were yanked as a failed system after X amount of time in retail, that doesn’t pass the “smell test”.

What patch were DHKs yanked out of the game?

212

Congratulations, you’ve got a valid argument.

CP2 - PVP Honor with no DHKs.
CP3 - Battlegrounds and DHKs.

That would be the valid authentic experience. You even get a little bit of wiggle, because you’d have them for the equivalent of Patch 1.3 and 1.4, not just the 43 days out of 758 days.

1 Like
213

They have never said they want a 1.12 replication.

What they have said is they want to “recreate an authentic classic experience with modern engineering”

214

You keep spouting this mantra, while handwaving the fact that DHKs were a QOL addition during vanilla.

215

I never said they wanted a 1.12 replication. I said they only have the original data in a complete form for 1.12, which is why they chose to use those values.

Personally I want progressive itemisation, progressive AV, and sure, DHKs for CP3 onwards only. It would be more authentic.

216

You might want to read what I wrote a little more slowly and with less cherrypicking.

217

You really don’t understand what they’re trying to do with Classic do you. You’re asking for the Private Server experience of “Tweak whatever we don’t like”, whereas they’re attempting a museum recreation, using the available data.

They don’t have a full database backup from each patch, so they can’t do progressive itemisation without guessing. They could do a CP2 No DHKs, CP3 DHKs change, which you should be lobbying for.

But the changes in Vanilla were the changes that happened. What you want now is a 2019 QOL change.

1 Like
218

please give a reason DHKs should be brought back, other than “they were in vanilla”. because guess what Honor without DHKS was also “in vanilla”

so because we can BOTH claim that argument it helps neither side.

Now keeping them out has provided other arguments,
Putting them back in has not.

So right now the only side that has given a valid argument is the removal of DHKs.

219

The second part about yanking them out is pointless, because they weren’t yanked out until after Vanilla. By that logic, the period they were yanked out of Vanilla for after introduction is 0%.

1 Like
220

You gave the exact reason. The burden of proof is on people changing the system. Removing DHKs is as much a QoL change as Guild Banks. Its a variation to the historical record for the purposes of people’s desired gameplay, not because it happened back then, or has to happen for technical or stability reasons.

Feel free to argue for CP2 without DHKs. That’s a valid argument. But CP3 onwards, they will be there because they were.

1 Like