Blizzard's Response to Classic Hardcore DDoS Attacks

[Doomcookie]

Your first analogy comparing this situation to the 13th Amendment is completely irrelevant and holds no merit in the discussion at hand. The enactment of the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, an act that was inherently necessary to correct a profound moral wrong and promote equality and justice. Comparing that monumental decision to the enforcement of Hardcore mode rules in a video game is a false equivalence that detracts from the actual topic. The two scenarios are vastly different in scope, impact, and context, rendering your analogy ineffective and inappropriate for this discussion.

Now, regarding your second analogy about the kidnapped runner: this also fails to align with the principles at play in Hardcore mode. My analogy of the marathon, where a participant falls due to a stray branch and is driven halfway to the finish line by race officials, better encapsulates the situation. In Hardcore mode, the established rules dictate that every player faces the same consequences for any form of death, maintaining FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY for all participants. By selectively reviving characters impacted by external factors, Blizzard compromises the INTEGRITY of the mode. Your analogy about the kidnapped runner assumes that restoring someone to their exact position is inherently just, but it fails to address the broader implications of making exceptions in a system built on impartial rules.

Let’s compare the analogies to further illustrate this:

Candy Bar/Ice Cream Analogy: These analogies rely on individual acts of kindness and fail to reflect the structured rules and principles of a competitive environment like Hardcore mode. They ignore the idea of equal treatment under established guidelines.

Kidnapped Runner Analogy: This analogy suggests that placing someone back to their original position is equitable, but it oversimplifies the situation. In Hardcore mode, there are no "do-overs," and introducing exceptions—even under extenuating circumstances—compromises trust in the system.

Marathon Analogy: My analogy accurately reflects the principles of Hardcore mode. A participant receiving external assistance mid-race disrupts the competitive fairness and undermines the trust of other participants. Just as the rules of a marathon must be upheld for all competitors, the rules of Hardcore mode must remain impartial to preserve the trust and INTEGRITY of the experience.

In summary, my analogy addresses the structured rules and principles that underpin Hardcore mode, making it a more suitable comparison. Your analogies, while creative, fail to engage with the core issue of FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY in a system defined by impartiality and consequences. Let’s focus on the actual implications of Blizzard’s decision rather than introducing comparisons that don’t hold up to scrutiny.

You admitted Blizzard broke no rules. Stop trying to talk about rules you admitted are not being broken. it makes you look silly.

This was an attack, who was beating people with the stick? Why do you want them to keep beating people with the stick. Why don't you want them to be able to re-enter the race at the exact same point where they started getting beaten with sticks, albeit 3 days later?

It's your analogy, dude.

[Hardstyle89]

Your argument begins with the assertion that Blizzard broke no rules, which is correct—but missing the point. My critique does not hinge on whether Blizzard violated explicit rules; instead, it focuses on the broader implications of their actions and how they introduce INCONSISTENCY into the principles of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and INTEGRITY that players expect from Hardcore mode. Rules are important, but so are the underlying principles that guide how those rules are applied—and selective exceptions risk eroding trust in those principles.

Regarding your stick analogy: while creative, it oversimplifies the situation and fails to align with the structured rules and impartial framework of Hardcore mode. My marathon analogy, where race officials drive a fallen participant halfway to the finish line due to external circumstances, better reflects the issue. Hardcore mode is a system designed to treat all players equally and enforce consequences universally. Just as assisting one participant in a marathon undermines the fairness of the competition, selectively reviving characters compromises the INTEGRITY of Hardcore mode by creating exceptions.

Let’s directly compare the analogies:

Stick Analogy: Your analogy introduces external violence and assumes that placing someone back exactly where they were is inherently fair. However, this overlooks the broader implications of breaking impartial rules in a structured system like Hardcore mode.

Marathon Analogy: My analogy addresses the structured rules of a competitive system, emphasizing how external assistance undermines the fairness for other participants. It mirrors the principles of Hardcore mode, where death is permanent and rules are applied universally.

Candy Bar/Ice Cream Analogies: These focus on individual kindness but ignore the impartial framework that Hardcore mode is built upon. While kindness is commendable, structured systems depend on equal treatment of all participants to preserve trust and fairness.

Your analogies, while imaginative, fail to engage with the specific principles that define Hardcore mode. Let’s focus on how Blizzard’s decision impacts the broader system of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and **IMPARTIALITY, rather than relying on comparisons that don’t capture the complexity of the situation.

[Doomcookie]

Your argument begins with the assertion that Blizzard broke no rules, which is correct—but missing the point. My critique does not hinge on whether Blizzard violated explicit rules; instead, it focuses on the broader implications of their actions and how they introduce INCONSISTENCY into the principles of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and INTEGRITY that players expect from Hardcore mode. Rules are important, but so are the underlying principles that guide how those rules are applied—and selective exceptions risk eroding trust in those principles.

Regarding your stick analogy: while creative, it oversimplifies the situation and fails to align with the structured rules and impartial framework of Hardcore mode. My marathon analogy, where race officials drive a fallen participant halfway to the finish line due to external circumstances, better reflects the issue. Hardcore mode is a system designed to treat all players equally and enforce consequences universally. Just as assisting one participant in a marathon undermines the fairness of the competition, selectively reviving characters compromises the INTEGRITY of Hardcore mode by creating exceptions.

Let’s directly compare the analogies:

Stick Analogy: Your analogy introduces external violence and assumes that placing someone back exactly where they were is inherently fair. However, this overlooks the broader implications of breaking impartial rules in a structured system like Hardcore mode.

Marathon Analogy: My analogy addresses the structured rules of a competitive system, emphasizing how external assistance undermines the fairness for other participants. It mirrors the principles of Hardcore mode, where death is permanent and rules are applied universally.

Candy Bar/Ice Cream Analogies: These focus on individual kindness but ignore the impartial framework that Hardcore mode is built upon. While kindness is commendable, structured systems depend on equal treatment of all participants to preserve trust and fairness.

Your analogies, while imaginative, fail to engage with the specific principles that define Hardcore mode. Let’s focus on how Blizzard’s decision impacts the broader system of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and **IMPARTIALITY, rather than relying on comparisons that don’t capture the complexity of the situation.

I'm not really sure why you want people to keep getting beaten by sticks in your marathon.

[Hardstyle89]

I'm not really sure why you want people to keep getting beaten by sticks in your marathon.

I never said anything about people getting "beaten by sticks" in my marathon analogy. What I actually described was a runner tripping due to a stray branch—a scenario meant to highlight external factors that disrupt the fairness of a competition. Misconstruing my analogy into something it was not detracts from the discussion and does not address the substantive points I raised.

Let’s refocus on the actual point I was making. In Hardcore mode, the rules are designed to enforce universal consequences for all players, maintaining FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and IMPARTIALITY. Selectively reviving characters after external disruptions—whether it’s a branch on the marathon course or external interference in the game—creates INCONSISTENCY in how those rules are applied. My marathon analogy captures this dynamic far better than the exaggerated “stick-beating” version presented here.

If we compare the analogies:

Stick Analogy: This overdramatic interpretation assumes malicious intent (beatings) and suggests that exceptions are inherently justifiable. However, this doesn’t align with the structured rules and impartial framework of a competitive system like Hardcore mode.

Marathon Analogy (My Original): This directly aligns with the principles of fairness and structured rules. Assisting a fallen runner disrupts the competitive integrity of the race, just as selectively reviving players undermines the trust in Hardcore mode’s universal rules.

[Doomcookie]

I never said anything about people getting "beaten by sticks" in my marathon analogy. What I actually described was a runner tripping due to a stray branch—a scenario meant to highlight external factors that disrupt the fairness of a competition. Misconstruing my analogy into something it was not detracts from the discussion and does not address the substantive points I raised.

Let’s refocus on the actual point I was making. In Hardcore mode, the rules are designed to enforce universal consequences for all players, maintaining FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and IMPARTIALITY. Selectively reviving characters after external disruptions—whether it’s a branch on the marathon course or external interference in the game—creates INCONSISTENCY in how those rules are applied. My marathon analogy captures this dynamic far better than the exaggerated “stick-beating” version presented here.

If we compare the analogies:

Stick Analogy: This overdramatic interpretation assumes malicious intent (beatings) and suggests that exceptions are inherently justifiable. However, this doesn’t align with the structured rules and impartial framework of a competitive system like Hardcore mode.

Marathon Analogy (My Original): This directly aligns with the principles of fairness and structured rules. Assisting a fallen runner disrupts the competitive integrity of the race, just as selectively reviving players undermines the trust in Hardcore mode’s universal rules.

It is your analogy. You want people to keep getting beaten by sticks in a marathon, because "consistency, impartiality, and fairness."

DDoS attacks aren't accidental, dude.

[Kyux]

The key difference is that lag spike and server issues are random. No one intentionally causes the issues. In that way it's fair.

DDoS attacks are not random. They are human-created and deliberate. In that way they are not fair.

That's the thing - it makes perfect sense to unwind the DDoS victims. Yeah it was funny af when they all died. But it also sucks. If Blizz didn't unwind the deaths then DDoS attackers would be more motivated to continue because they see results. It's an anti-griefing measure not an anti-death measure.

[Hardstyle89]

Your interpretation of my analogy is entirely inaccurate. At no point did I mention or suggest that people were "beaten by sticks" in the marathon analogy. What I described was a runner tripping over a stray branch—a neutral and external factor. By twisting the analogy into something it clearly was not, you’re misconstruing my words and distracting from the substantive point of the discussion. This approach undermines constructive dialogue and focuses on creating an exaggerated scenario instead of addressing the principles at hand.

The original analogy, which revolves around a runner being assisted mid-race after tripping, was meant to highlight how selective interventions undermine the structured rules of a competitive system. The core point is that systems like Hardcore mode depend on CONSISTENCY, FAIRNESS, and IMPARTIALITY to maintain trust among participants. Introducing exceptions—whether for a fallen runner or a character in Hardcore mode—creates INCONSISTENCY that erodes the system’s INTEGRITY.

When comparing the analogies provided in this discussion:

Your Stick Analogy: This exaggerates the situation with implied violence, which is irrelevant to the principles of Hardcore mode. Introducing such a dramatic scenario distracts from the structural and impartial rules required for fairness.

My Marathon Analogy: This analogy remains aligned with the principles of fairness and structured rules. It accurately reflects how external disruptions—like a stray branch—can lead to interventions that undermine the competitive integrity of the system.

The marathon analogy is far more appropriate than your stick analogy, or even previous examples like candy bars or ice cream cones, because it directly addresses the structured framework of rules in a competitive environment. Let’s refocus the discussion on how Blizzard’s actions impact the broader system of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and IMPARTIALITY instead of twisting analogies into something irrelevant.

[Doomcookie]

Your interpretation of my analogy is entirely inaccurate. At no point did I mention or suggest that people were "beaten by sticks" in the marathon analogy. What I described was a runner tripping over a stray branch—a neutral and external factor. By twisting the analogy into something it clearly was not, you’re misconstruing my words and distracting from the substantive point of the discussion. This approach undermines constructive dialogue and focuses on creating an exaggerated scenario instead of addressing the principles at hand.

The original analogy, which revolves around a runner being assisted mid-race after tripping, was meant to highlight how selective interventions undermine the structured rules of a competitive system. The core point is that systems like Hardcore mode depend on CONSISTENCY, FAIRNESS, and IMPARTIALITY to maintain trust among participants. Introducing exceptions—whether for a fallen runner or a character in Hardcore mode—creates INCONSISTENCY that erodes the system’s INTEGRITY.

When comparing the analogies provided in this discussion:

Your Stick Analogy: This exaggerates the situation with implied violence, which is irrelevant to the principles of Hardcore mode. Introducing such a dramatic scenario distracts from the structural and impartial rules required for fairness.

My Marathon Analogy: This analogy remains aligned with the principles of fairness and structured rules. It accurately reflects how external disruptions—like a stray branch—can lead to interventions that undermine the competitive integrity of the system.

The marathon analogy is far more appropriate than your stick analogy, or even previous examples like candy bars or ice cream cones, because it directly addresses the structured framework of rules in a competitive environment. Let’s refocus the discussion on how Blizzard’s actions impact the broader system of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and IMPARTIALITY instead of twisting analogies into something irrelevant.

DDoS attacks aren't accidental, dude. it's not neutral, dude.

Why do you want runners to be beaten by sticks?

[Hardstyle89]

The key difference is that lag spike and server issues are random. No one intentionally causes the issues. In that way it's fair.

DDoS attacks are not random. They are human-created and deliberate. In that way they are not fair.

That's the thing - it makes perfect sense to unwind the DDoS victims. Yeah it was funny af when they all died. But it also sucks. If Blizz didn't unwind the deaths then DDoS attackers would be more motivated to continue because they see results. It's an anti-griefing measure not an anti-death measure.

While it’s true that a distinction exists between random server issues (e.g., lag spikes) and intentional acts like DDoS attacks, this does not justify Blizzard selectively reviving characters in Hardcore mode. The issue lies not in the intent behind the disruptions but in the resulting INCONSISTENCY with the foundational principles of **FAIRNESS, **CONSISTENCY, and **IMPARTIALITY that define Hardcore mode.

Reviving characters after a DDoS attack may seem like an anti-griefing measure, but it also undermines the trust players place in the Hardcore ruleset. The mode is built on the principle that death is permanent for any reason, and creating exceptions—even for deliberate external factors—sets a dangerous precedent. By selectively restoring characters, Blizzard risks eroding the **INTEGRITY of Hardcore mode and creating expectations for future interventions in other cases, which compromises the very nature of the mode.

As for the argument that not reviving characters would motivate DDoS attackers further, this rationale assumes that the attackers' goal is to see players suffer. In reality, their motivations might just as easily include creating controversy or highlighting vulnerabilities—both of which Blizzard’s actions could inadvertently reinforce. A better anti-griefing measure would focus on improving server security and preventing DDoS attacks entirely, rather than compromising the rules of Hardcore mode to mitigate the damage after the fact.

Your argument also fails to address a key point: fairness to other players. What about those who have lost their Hardcore characters due to various random factors, such as lag, power outages, personal errors, or previous DDoS attacks?? If Blizzard selectively revives these characters affected by this last DDoS attack but not others, it creates a double standard, undermining the FAIRNESS and **CONSISTENCY that players expect.

In conclusion, while deliberate acts like DDoS attacks are indeed different from random server issues, Blizzard’s response should prioritize strengthening preventative measures rather than compromising the universal rules of Hardcore mode. Doing otherwise introduces INCONSISTENCY, which undermines trust in the system.

- - - Updated - - -

DDoS attacks aren't accidental, dude. it's not neutral, dude.

Why do you want runners to be beaten by sticks?

First, I never stated or implied that DDoS attacks are accidental or neutral. My argument has always been about the broader implications of selectively reviving Hardcore mode characters and how this introduces INCONSISTENCY into the principles of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and INTEGRITY that define the game mode. While the intent behind disruptions (whether accidental or deliberate) can differ, the consequences within the ruleset should remain universal to preserve trust in the system.

Second, I never said anything about runners being "beaten by sticks." My marathon analogy described a participant tripping over a stray branch—an external and neutral factor. By mischaracterizing this analogy into one involving deliberate violence, you’re misconstruing my point and distracting from the actual argument. The focus of the analogy was to highlight how external interventions, even with good intentions, undermine a competitive system’s structured rules and fairness.

Let’s revisit and compare the analogies:

Stick Analogy: This exaggerates the situation by introducing violence, which is irrelevant to the principles of Hardcore mode. It doesn’t reflect the structured rules that the mode is built upon.

Marathon Analogy (My Original): This analogy aligns with the principles of fairness and structured rules. It demonstrates how intervening to assist one participant (e.g., driving them halfway to the finish line) disrupts the competitive integrity of the race, just as reviving characters compromises Hardcore mode's universal rules.

If we’re to move forward productively, let’s focus on the actual implications of Blizzard’s decisions rather than creating distorted analogies. My point has always been that selectively reviving characters compromises the IMPARTIALITY of Hardcore mode, regardless of the external cause, and a better solution lies in preventive measures to deter DDoS attacks without undermining the ruleset.

[Doomcookie]

While it’s true that a distinction exists between random server issues (e.g., lag spikes) and intentional acts like DDoS attacks, this does not justify Blizzard selectively reviving characters in Hardcore mode. The issue lies not in the intent behind the disruptions but in the resulting INCONSISTENCY with the foundational principles of **FAIRNESS, **CONSISTENCY, and **IMPARTIALITY that define Hardcore mode.

Reviving characters after a DDoS attack may seem like an anti-griefing measure, but it also undermines the trust players place in the Hardcore ruleset. The mode is built on the principle that death is permanent for any reason, and creating exceptions—even for deliberate external factors—sets a dangerous precedent. By selectively restoring characters, Blizzard risks eroding the **INTEGRITY of Hardcore mode and creating expectations for future interventions in other cases, which compromises the very nature of the mode.

As for the argument that not reviving characters would motivate DDoS attackers further, this rationale assumes that the attackers' goal is to see players suffer. In reality, their motivations might just as easily include creating controversy or highlighting vulnerabilities—both of which Blizzard’s actions could inadvertently reinforce. A better anti-griefing measure would focus on improving server security and preventing DDoS attacks entirely, rather than compromising the rules of Hardcore mode to mitigate the damage after the fact.

Your argument also fails to address a key point: fairness to other players. What about those who have lost their Hardcore characters due to various random factors, such as lag, power outages, personal errors, or previous DDoS attacks?? If Blizzard selectively revives these characters affected by this last DDoS attack but not others, it creates a double standard, undermining the FAIRNESS and **CONSISTENCY that players expect.

In conclusion, while deliberate acts like DDoS attacks are indeed different from random server issues, Blizzard’s response should prioritize strengthening preventative measures rather than compromising the universal rules of Hardcore mode. Doing otherwise introduces INCONSISTENCY, which undermines trust in the system.

That doesn't explain why you think runners should be beaten by sticks during certain parts of the marathon in your analogy.

You have admitted that Blizzard has broken no rules, so you should be applauding them. Why the INCONSISTENCY?

[Hardstyle89]

That doesn't explain why you think runners should be beaten by sticks during certain parts of the marathon in your analogy.

You have admitted that Blizzard has broken no rules, so you should be applauding them. Why the INCONSISTENCY[/B]?

Your interpretation of my analogy is both inaccurate and misleading.

At no point did I suggest or imply that runners should be "beaten with sticks." The analogy I provided described a runner tripping over a stray branch—an external and neutral factor—not malicious violence.

By repeatedly misconstruing my analogy, you are creating a false narrative that detracts from the core discussion and fails to engage with the principles I have raised.

This misrepresentation appears to be an attempt to derail the conversation rather than contribute meaningfully.

As for Blizzard's actions, while they may not have explicitly broken any rules, their selective reviving of characters introduces INCONSISTENCY with the principles of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and IMPARTIALITY that are central to Hardcore mode. These principles are about more than just rule adherence—they are about maintaining trust and the integrity of the system. By creating exceptions, Blizzard sets a precedent that undermines these principles, which is the heart of the critique I’ve made.

Let’s refocus on the actual topic at hand: how Blizzard's actions impact the broader trust in the Hardcore ruleset. Misrepresenting my analogy does not address this critical issue and only serves to derail constructive dialogue. If you wish to continue the discussion, I encourage engagement with the principles I’ve outlined rather than relying on exaggerated or false interpretations.

Mod Edit: Do not use giant fonts in this fashion.

[Doomcookie]

--- snip ---

The color and font size seem to be taking on a life of its own.

I had no idea a DDoS attack was a "stray branch," and not a malicious action. But, characters are literally getting killed...And you admitted Blizzard followed their rules.

I think that's a solid summary. As a result, I trust Blizzard more.

[Hardstyle89]

First, the comment regarding "color and font size" is irrelevant to the discussion and appears to be an attempt to mock rather than engage constructively. Let’s remain focused on the actual debate instead of sidetracking with commentary that adds no substance.

Second, I never equated a DDoS attack to a "stray branch." That analogy was used to illustrate how external factors—regardless of their nature—can disrupt a competitive environment. The specific nature of the external factor (whether accidental or deliberate) is irrelevant to the argument because the rules of Hardcore mode are designed to treat all external disruptions equally. The principle here is about maintaining FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and IMPARTIALITY—regardless of the cause of death.

While it is true that Blizzard followed their explicit rules, my critique focuses on the broader implications of their actions. Selectively reviving characters creates INCONSISTENCY with the principles that players trust and expect in Hardcore mode. It’s not about whether rules were broken, but whether their application adheres to the universal principles that uphold the mode’s integrity. By making exceptions for certain deaths while ignoring others caused by equally external factors (e.g., lag, power outages), Blizzard sets a precedent that undermines trust in the system.

Finally, while you might trust Blizzard more as a result of their actions, others may feel differently because of the impact on Hardcore mode’s INTEGRITY. Trust is built on consistent application of rules, and when exceptions are introduced, it creates division within the community. A more effective solution would involve preventive measures against DDoS attacks rather than retroactively compromising the principles of the mode.

Let’s focus on the actual issues at hand without resorting to mischaracterizations or dismissive remarks.

[Doomcookie]

First, the comment regarding "color and font size" is irrelevant to the discussion and appears to be an attempt to mock rather than engage constructively. Let’s remain focused on the actual debate instead of sidetracking with commentary that adds no substance.

Second, I never equated a DDoS attack to a "stray branch." That analogy was used to illustrate how external factors—regardless of their nature—can disrupt a competitive environment. The specific nature of the external factor (whether accidental or deliberate) is irrelevant to the argument because the rules of Hardcore mode are designed to treat all external disruptions equally. The principle here is about maintaining FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and IMPARTIALITY—regardless of the cause of death.

While it is true that Blizzard followed their explicit rules, my critique focuses on the broader implications of their actions. Selectively reviving characters creates INCONSISTENCY with the principles that players trust and expect in Hardcore mode. It’s not about whether rules were broken, but whether their application adheres to the universal principles that uphold the mode’s integrity. By making exceptions for certain deaths while ignoring others caused by equally external factors (e.g., lag, power outages), Blizzard sets a precedent that undermines trust in the system.

Finally, while you might trust Blizzard more as a result of their actions, others may feel differently because of the impact on Hardcore mode’s INTEGRITY. Trust is built on consistent application of rules, and when exceptions are introduced, it creates division within the community. A more effective solution would involve preventive measures against DDoS attacks rather than retroactively compromising the principles of the mode.

Let’s focus on the actual issues at hand without resorting to mischaracterizations or dismissive remarks.

It's great you admit Blizzard followed the rules of Hardcore, and are remaining consistent, despite the efforts of bad actors, and those who want them to succeed.

[Hardstyle89]

While it is true that Blizzard followed the explicit rules of Hardcore mode, my critique has consistently been about the principles of the mode, not the mere adherence to rules. Hardcore mode is built on foundational values that have remained intact for over 25 years—values such as FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, IMPARTIALITY, and **INTEGRITY. These principles are what create trust and ensure the integrity of the game. Blizzard's decision to selectively revive characters, while not breaking explicit rules, introduces INCONSISTENCY into the application of these principles. This undermines the very trust that players have built in the Hardcore system for decades.

The point I am raising goes beyond rule adherence—it’s about the broader impact on the Hardcore community. Selectively intervening in cases like DDoS attacks, while ignoring other external factors such as lag spikes, power outages, or random server errors, creates a double standard. This erodes the FAIRNESS and **CONSISTENCY that have defined Hardcore mode for generations.

To applaud Blizzard solely for following the rules is to overlook the more critical issue of how their actions compromise the INTEGRITY of the mode. Instead of selective revivals, a better solution would be implementing preventative measures to address external disruptions without introducing exceptions that undermine trust in the system.

[fazaim]

This is not speculation but a fact rooted in Blizzard’s history with Hardcore gameplay.[/SIZE][/B] The connection between Diablo II's Hardcore mode and WoW Classic’s Hardcore implementation is undeniable

Sure, parts of it. "Having to do with" is not the same as "being exactly the same as." Wherever the concept of permanent death on a character comes from will have something to do with this. And that's the whole connection you're making. WoW and Diablo II are not the same game and don't follow the same rules.

If you simply look at Rules of Engagement from June 28th 2023, they stated:

"Gameplay that involves Zone Disruption and malicious player killing outside of consensual PvP will not be tolerated on Hardcore realms.

By this, we mean deliberate action to hamper or significantly impede the ability of other players to enjoy the game, such as (but not limited to) repeatedly killing quest NPCs or kiting important quest mobs far away from their spawn location to prevent them from being killed.

Most importantly, this also includes taking actions to deliberately cause the death of another player, such as (but not limited to) kiting higher level or elite mobs onto or near other players with the intent that they take damage and die.

As with any new development, we’ll be keeping a close eye on player behavior during the test phase and adjust as needed. We want WoW Classic Hardcore to be a fun and challenging experience for anyone who wants to jump into the action."

They've adjusted as needed. What's your problem?

[SinR]

Hardstyle.

Please Bro. For your own sake, for your mental health, for your physical health.

Go outside and touch grass. Meditate. Think about Puppies or Kittens. Close your eyes and picture a cat on your lap, purring.

Coming in here and screeching about rules is only going to cause you extreme levels of stress.

[fazaim]

exceptions that undermine trust in the system.

Whose trust?

foundational values that have remained intact for over 25 years

*2 years and still being adjusted

it’s about the broader impact on the Hardcore community

Point out some impact it would have on the community

[Hardstyle89]

Firstly, the argument conflates the concept of "having to do with" versus "being exactly the same as" to dismiss the relevance of foundational principles from Hardcore modes in games like Diablo II. While it is true that WoW and Diablo II are distinct games with different mechanics, the overarching principle of PERMANENT DEATH is a universal concept that has underpinned Hardcore modes for decades. This principle transcends individual game rules and creates trust and INTEGRITY within the Hardcore community—a trust that Blizzard’s recent actions risk undermining through selective revivals. The connection is not about the games being identical but about the shared ethos that defines Hardcore gameplay.

Secondly, referencing the Rules of Engagement from June 28, 2023, to justify Blizzard's actions in response to the DDoS attacks overlooks a critical issue. While these rules address malicious player behavior, such as "Zone Disruption" and "malicious player killing," they do not explicitly address Blizzard selectively reviving characters. These actions introduce INCONSISTENCY in the application of Hardcore principles. By intervening in specific cases while ignoring deaths caused by other external factors (e.g., lag, power outages, or even earlier DDoS attacks), Blizzard creates a double standard that erodes FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY—both cornerstones of Hardcore modes.

Additionally, while Blizzard’s intent may be to make WoW Classic Hardcore "fun and challenging," the selective reviving of characters shifts the focus away from the defining attribute of Hardcore modes: PERMANENT CONSEQUENCES. Hardcore mode thrives on the idea that all deaths—regardless of cause—are treated equally. Exceptions, even with good intentions, compromise the trust players place in the ruleset and create an expectation of future interventions, further undermining the INTEGRITY of the system.

To conclude, the problem lies not with Blizzard’s intent or their stated rules but with the INCONSISTENCY introduced by their actions. A more effective approach would involve preventative measures to deter DDoS attacks entirely, rather than retroactively undermining the principles that have defined Hardcore mode for decades.

[Doomcookie]

While it is true that Blizzard followed the explicit rules of Hardcore mode, my critique has consistently been about the principles of the mode, not the mere adherence to rules. Hardcore mode is built on foundational values that have remained intact for over 25 years—values such as FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, IMPARTIALITY, and **INTEGRITY. These principles are what create trust and ensure the integrity of the game. Blizzard's decision to selectively revive characters, while not breaking explicit rules, introduces INCONSISTENCY into the application of these principles. This undermines the very trust that players have built in the Hardcore system for decades.

The point I am raising goes beyond rule adherence—it’s about the broader impact on the Hardcore community. Selectively intervening in cases like DDoS attacks, while ignoring other external factors such as lag spikes, power outages, or random server errors, creates a double standard. This erodes the FAIRNESS and **CONSISTENCY that have defined Hardcore mode for generations.

To applaud Blizzard solely for following the rules is to overlook the more critical issue of how their actions compromise the INTEGRITY of the mode. Instead of selective revivals, a better solution would be implementing preventative measures to address external disruptions without introducing exceptions that undermine trust in the system.

I appreciate that you admit Blizzard followed all the rules you outlined, and was doing exactly as it should.

It's a shame bad actors, and those who support them, want it to be otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Firstly, the argument conflates the concept of "having to do with" versus "being exactly the same as" to dismiss the relevance of foundational principles from Hardcore modes in games like Diablo II. While it is true that WoW and Diablo II are distinct games with different mechanics, the overarching principle of PERMANENT DEATH is a universal concept that has underpinned Hardcore modes for decades. This principle transcends individual game rules and creates trust and INTEGRITY within the Hardcore community—a trust that Blizzard’s recent actions risk undermining through selective revivals. The connection is not about the games being identical but about the shared ethos that defines Hardcore gameplay.

Secondly, referencing the Rules of Engagement from June 28, 2023, to justify Blizzard's actions in response to the DDoS attacks overlooks a critical issue. While these rules address malicious player behavior, such as "Zone Disruption" and "malicious player killing," they do not explicitly address Blizzard selectively reviving characters. These actions introduce INCONSISTENCY in the application of Hardcore principles. By intervening in specific cases while ignoring deaths caused by other external factors (e.g., lag, power outages, or even earlier DDoS attacks), Blizzard creates a double standard that erodes FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY—both cornerstones of Hardcore modes.

Additionally, while Blizzard’s intent may be to make WoW Classic Hardcore "fun and challenging," the selective reviving of characters shifts the focus away from the defining attribute of Hardcore modes: PERMANENT CONSEQUENCES. Hardcore mode thrives on the idea that all deaths—regardless of cause—are treated equally. Exceptions, even with good intentions, compromise the trust players place in the ruleset and create an expectation of future interventions, further undermining the INTEGRITY of the system.

To conclude, the problem lies not with Blizzard’s intent or their stated rules but with the INCONSISTENCY introduced by their actions. A more effective approach would involve preventative measures to deter DDoS attacks entirely, rather than retroactively undermining the principles that have defined Hardcore mode for decades.

You admit Blizzard did nothing wrong.

You're just mad they didn't do it 25 years ago...