Blizzard's Response to Classic Hardcore DDoS Attacks

[Hardstyle89]

Whose trust?

The trust I’m referring to is that of the Hardcore gaming community—players who have participated in Hardcore modes for nearly 25 years, starting with Blizzard’s introduction of this concept in Diablo II. Hardcore players trust that the mode adheres to principles like FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, IMPARTIALITY, and **INTEGRITY, regardless of external factors. This trust is critical because it ensures that all players are treated equally under the rules, creating a competitive and universally challenging environment. When Blizzard selectively revives characters after specific external disruptions—like a DDoS attack—it introduces INCONSISTENCY that undermines this trust.

Moreover, this trust isn't limited to Hardcore veterans; it extends to newer players exploring Hardcore mode for the first time. They rely on the mode’s promise of equal consequences for all deaths, which forms the cornerstone of its appeal. Exceptions, even for deliberate external disruptions, compromise the mode’s INTEGRITY and create doubts about its impartiality.

To preserve this trust, Blizzard should focus on preventative measures against disruptions like DDoS attacks, rather than retroactively reviving characters. The issue at hand is not about bending rules to accommodate specific incidents but about upholding the universal principles that define Hardcore mode.

*2 years and still being adjusted

I’ve already addressed this point with you before, and yet you still cannot grasp the concept. Hardcore mode has been around for almost 25 years, first introduced and popularized by Blizzard with Diablo II. The foundation of Hardcore mode has always been built on the principles of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, IMPARTIALITY, and INTEGRITY—principles that establish trust and provide equal treatment for all players. This isn’t merely about rules; it’s about the broader implications and long-standing ethos of Hardcore gameplay.

Selective reviving of characters introduces INCONSISTENCY, disrupting the trust players have in the system. My critique focuses on how these actions erode the very principles that have defined Hardcore mode for decades. Despite my thorough explanations, you continue to misrepresent the argument as being solely about rule adherence, which it is not. This persistent misunderstanding detracts from the core discussion and fails to engage with the substance of the points I’ve raised.

Let’s refocus on the actual topic at hand: how Blizzard’s decisions impact the trust and principles of Hardcore mode, rather than repeatedly misconstruing the argument into something it is not.

Point out some impact it would have on the community

1. Erosion of Trust in the Hardcore Ruleset: Hardcore mode has always been built on the principle of FAIRNESS—that every player faces the same risks and consequences. Selectively reviving characters undermines this fairness, leading players to question whether the system is truly impartial. This lack of trust could deter long-term Hardcore players who rely on the mode's consistent application of rules.

2. Divisive Precedents: By creating exceptions for deaths caused by DDoS attacks, Blizzard sets a precedent for future interventions. Players may begin demanding revivals for other external causes, such as lag, power outages, or even accidental disconnects. This results in blurred lines around what qualifies for an exception, further eroding CONSISTENCY in the application of rules.

3. Impact on New Players: New players entering the Hardcore community may struggle to understand the double standards being applied. This selective enforcement may give them the impression that Hardcore mode lacks INTEGRITY and that their deaths might only be forgiven under certain conditions, discouraging them from taking the mode seriously.

4. Community Fracture: The decision to selectively revive characters has already sparked heated debates, dividing the community into those who support the revivals and those who oppose them. This division fosters resentment, as players feel Blizzard is favoring one group over another, further straining the sense of camaraderie within the Hardcore community.

5. Shift Away from Hardcore Principles: The essence of Hardcore mode is its high-stakes nature, where every decision counts, and every mistake can result in permanent consequences. By reviving characters, Blizzard risks diluting these principles, making Hardcore mode feel less like the ultimate challenge it has been for nearly 25 years.

6. Potential for Exploitation: If players begin to see that external factors can lead to exceptions, this might open the door for individuals to exploit such situations. For example, players might purposefully attempt to trigger scenarios that could qualify for exceptions, further compromising the IMPARTIALITY of the system.

7. Deterrence of Competitive Play: Many Hardcore players thrive on the competitive aspect of the mode—knowing that everyone faces the same risks and rules. If Blizzard continues to make exceptions, it could diminish the competitive environment, as some players might feel they are not being judged equally.

By selectively reviving characters, Blizzard risks compromising the foundational principles of Hardcore mode: FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, IMPARTIALITY, and INTEGRITY. These impacts collectively undermine the Hardcore experience, leaving the community questioning the mode’s future. Preventative measures, rather than reactive exceptions, would be a more effective approach to preserving the trust and appeal of Hardcore gameplay.

- - - Updated - - -

The claim that I "admit Blizzard did nothing wrong" simplifies and misrepresents the issue I’ve raised. As I’ve consistently stated in this discussion, my critique is not about whether Blizzard broke explicit rules but about the broader impact of their actions on the principles of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and INTEGRITY that define Hardcore mode. The foundation of Hardcore mode, established nearly 25 years ago when Blizzard introduced it with Diablo II, is not merely about adhering to a set of written rules—it’s about creating a universal challenge where all players are subject to the same consequences, regardless of circumstances.

The second claim, that I’m "mad they didn’t do it 25 years ago," completely mischaracterizes my position. Hardcore mode has been a consistent staple in gaming for over two decades, and its defining principles—permanent death and impartial application of consequences—have stood the test of time. My concern is not about what Blizzard did or didn’t do 25 years ago; it’s about how their current actions risk undermining those long-standing principles now. By selectively reviving characters, Blizzard introduces INCONSISTENCY, which undermines the trust Hardcore players have relied on for generations.

This isn’t about being "mad" at Blizzard or holding them to what they might have done in the past—it’s about holding them accountable to the core principles that define Hardcore gameplay and maintaining the IMPARTIALITY that makes Hardcore mode meaningful. Selective exceptions risk eroding the INTEGRITY of the system and diminishing the legacy of Hardcore gaming.

[Doomcookie]

--- snip ---

I play hardcore, I'm cool with the rollbacks. Stop trying to speak for me.

It doesn't hurt me in any way. Unlike you, I'm not mad that the shop owner gave a kid a replacement candy bar.

[fazaim]

The trust I’m referring to is that of the Hardcore gaming community

I'm part of it, I'm fine with this, no trust broken. So do you have evidence most of the community feels trust has been undermined?

I’ve already addressed this point with you before, and yet you still cannot grasp the concept.

You still haven't grasped they are not the same games or modes? Yes, your character dies permanently. One is an ARPG, one is an MMO-RPG. They can't be treated the same.

Selective reviving of characters introduces INCONSISTENCY

That depends completely on how they act from here on out. If they consistently review such cases from this point, they'll be consistent

Rest of your post is bullshit and you have highlighted your spam in red hahaha.

[Mecheon]

The trust I’m referring to is that of the Hardcore gaming community—players who have participated in Hardcore modes for nearly 25 years, starting with Blizzard’s introduction of this concept in Diablo II. Hardcore players trust that the mode adheres to principles like FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, IMPARTIALITY, and **INTEGRITY, regardless of external factors. This trust is critical because it ensures that all players are treated equally under the rules, creating a competitive and universally challenging environment. When Blizzard selectively revives characters after specific external disruptions—like a DDoS attack—it introduces INCONSISTENCY that undermines this trust.

mate, you really should get off arguing about hardcore characters and like. Into business. Because you sound like the PR stuff they feed us every meeting about the company's responsibilities

Selective reviving of characters introduces INCONSISTENCY, disrupting the trust players have in the system. My critique focuses on how these actions erode the very principles that have defined Hardcore mode for decades. Despite my thorough explanations, you continue to misrepresent the argument as being solely about rule adherence, which it is not. This persistent misunderstanding detracts from the core discussion and fails to engage with the substance of the points I’ve raised.

I mean, you say inconsistency but I'm going to apply the opposite: Why would you risk doing a hardcore setting when there is now a risk that you could be targeted by external factors who shut down the entire server? Giving into the DDOS and letting it stand is Blizzard saying "Our service is not stable enough to risk putting all that time into" and kills Hardcore for the simple reason of "I can lose all this due to no action or inaction of my own, but instead the action of an aggressive third party who has no stakes into the game"

Its one thing to PVP and be killed, that person has also put in similar stakes. But when a third party is doing illegal activity to disrupt the game session of you and other players with the deliberate intent to bring down the servers? That's a bit different of a situation

2. Divisive Precedents: By creating exceptions for deaths caused by DDoS attacks, Blizzard sets a precedent for future interventions. Players may begin demanding revivals for other external causes, such as lag, power outages, or even accidental disconnects. This results in blurred lines around what qualifies for an exception, further eroding CONSISTENCY in the application of rules.

This is such an absurd slippery slope

3. Impact on New Players: New players entering the Hardcore community may struggle to understand the double standards being applied. This selective enforcement may give them the impression that Hardcore mode lacks INTEGRITY and that their deaths might only be forgiven under certain conditions, discouraging them from taking the mode seriously.

Or, because new players can see that Blizzard will take action to stop blatant exploits (let's be honest here, DDOSing is not an intended feature of the game), they might join Hardcore because they can see it is a fair and trustworthy thing they can participate in. This is showing integrity and not bowing down to hackers

You say this is somehow shattering integrity, I argue the opposite. Your perceived hardcore world is one where hackers reign supreme and Blizzard intervenes on nothing. Your world is one where a hacker could teleport into a game, grab a streamer's character, teleport them into the void under the world, killing them instantly, and you would argue "That is fair!" despite this being a blatant exploit

Would you play hardcore in a game that was hacked all the time and had people flying around with invincibility cheats, firing down rockets upon every player with hacked aim, when this is specifically not a feature of the game and is hacked in?

6. Potential for Exploitation: If players begin to see that external factors can lead to exceptions, this might open the door for individuals to exploit such situations. For example, players might purposefully attempt to trigger scenarios that could qualify for exceptions, further compromising the IMPARTIALITY of the system.

I'm going to take this and run it right back at you: If Blizzard did nothing, this is sending a clear sign to people out there that DDOSing and player disruption is fine and you can do it.

If Blizzard didn't reset them, they were instead saying "It is fine to use external factors to disrupt the playstyle of players"

7. Deterrence of Competitive Play: Many Hardcore players thrive on the competitive aspect of the mode—knowing that everyone faces the same risks and rules. If Blizzard continues to make exceptions, it could diminish the competitive environment, as some players might feel they are not being judged equally.

The servers being DDOSed by an aggressive third party is a little outside the 'competitive environment'

A third party aggressively attacked an external factor of the system to cheat people out of actually engaging with the system. If someone rammed a car into your house when you're in the middle of a game tournament, for the express purpose of disrupting that tournament, I'm pretty sure they're going to call a break and not go "Well, we're in the middle of the tournament so, too bad, even though Hardstyle's house is presently falling apart"

The claim that I "admit Blizzard did nothing wrong" simplifies and misrepresents the issue I’ve raised. As I’ve consistently stated in this discussion, my critique is not about whether Blizzard broke explicit rules but about the broader impact of their actions on the principles of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and INTEGRITY that define Hardcore mode. The foundation of Hardcore mode, established nearly 25 years ago when Blizzard introduced it with Diablo II, is not merely about adhering to a set of written rules—it’s about creating a universal challenge where all players are subject to the same consequences, regardless of circumstances.

A third party has explicitly broken those rules to get other people killed. DDOSing is not part of the foundation of hardcore mode to begin with

This happened because someone did an illegal action using probably hacked computers

[Ereb]

Color party with bold/capslock

If you are so pro-rules tell me how come you broke the ones here? Kind of hypocritical if you ask me

[moistkitty]

The recent decision by Blizzard to selectively revive Hardcore characters following the DDoS attack has sparked a significant debate within the community. While their actions may seem reasonable on the surface, the deeper implications raise concerns about fairness and integrity in Hardcore mode—principles that have defined its legacy for nearly 25 years.

The Role of Fairness in Hardcore Mode: Hardcore mode has always been built on the foundational principle of fairness, ensuring that all players face the same risks and consequences. When Blizzard prioritizes certain groups, such as high-profile streamers or affiliated guilds like ONLYFANGS, it undermines this fundamental value. Fairness demands equal treatment for every player, from Level 1 to Level 60, regardless of their status or visibility. Anything less creates inconsistency and damages the integrity of Hardcore mode as a high-stakes, universally impartial experience.

Blizzard’s Resources and Responsibilities: As a BILLION-dollar company owned by a TRILLION-dollar parent company, Blizzard has the financial and operational capability to address these issues effectively. If they are serious about fairness, they should allocate the necessary resources to restore every affected character, not just a select few. Extending this commitment back to the very origins of Hardcore mode in Diablo II, launched on June 28, 2000, would demonstrate true dedication to the principles that make Hardcore gameplay iconic.

Preferential Treatment and Community Impact: The prioritization of guilds like ONLYFANGS, filled with individuals tied to Blizzard, highlights a divide that many players feel. Casual players and smaller guilds, who form the backbone of the Hardcore community, deserve the same level of care and attention. The perception of favoritism not only strains trust but also risks fragmenting the community, leaving many players feeling neglected.

Fairness and the Bigger Picture: Fairness is not just a principle; it is the cornerstone of trust and integrity in Hardcore mode. Any compromise—no matter how justified it seems—can have profound ripple effects, chipping away at the very values that have held the Hardcore community together for decades. Blizzard’s handling of this situation serves as a pivotal moment, and how they address the broader community’s concerns will shape the future of Hardcore gameplay for years to come.

[WeAreNotSmilesTimes]

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.

I genuinely don't even understand how this whole thing is controversial. Internet is gonna internet I guess.

[moistkitty]

I genuinely don't even understand how this whole thing is controversial. Internet is gonna internet I guess.

The controversy arises because Blizzard's decision to unwind DDoS-related deaths strikes at the core of what Hardcore mode represents: fairness, consistency, and integrity. While the distinction between random server issues and deliberate DDoS attacks is valid, the key question is whether selectively restoring characters undermines the foundational principles that have defined Hardcore gameplay for decades.

Hardcore mode is built on the idea that all deaths—regardless of their cause—carry the same consequence: permanent loss. By making exceptions for certain scenarios, even those as malicious as a DDoS attack, it introduces inconsistency and opens the door to subjective judgment about which situations warrant intervention. This inconsistency is where the controversy lies, as it challenges the universal application of Hardcore rules.

Blizzard’s intent to deter DDoS attackers is understandable, but it also raises concerns about fairness to other players who have lost their characters due to external factors like lag or server issues. If Blizzard addresses one form of external disruption while ignoring others, it sets a divisive precedent. The debate isn't about whether preventing griefing is valid—it’s about how these actions align with the core philosophy of Hardcore mode. That’s why this is controversial for ALL serious hardcore players, as it questions the balance between fairness, deterrence, and maintaining the Hardcore community’s trust.

[Ereb]

I genuinely don't even understand how this whole thing is controversial. Internet is gonna internet I guess.

Blizzard could hand everybody a sack of gold and half of them would just cry about how heavy it is

[moistkitty]

Blizzard could hand everybody a sack of gold and half of them would just cry about how heavy it is

That has nothing to do with the hardcore chars being restored tho.

[Ereb]

That has nothing to do with the hardcore chars being restored tho.

Yes yes you love playing with mole hills we get it

[Mecheon]

I genuinely don't even understand how this whole thing is controversial. Internet is gonna internet I guess.

Some WoW players really hate streamers and want them to suffer

Despite, y'know, the streamers probably being the reason hardcore is as popular as it is and people genuinely thinking that if Blizzard did nothing about this attack, hardcore would basically become about as dead as the Vanilla classic servers

[Ielenia]

<snippity snip>

For someone so hell-bent in "strict adherence to the rules", you sure love to break them, don't you?

[Relapses]

For someone so hell-bent in "strict adherence to the rules", you sure love to break them, don't you?

Honestly, a perfect encapsulation of the controversy.

[SinR]

So.

Can we confirm that people that died to a DDoS outside of the OnlyFangs Raid DDoS (Namely, during the RWF DDoS Attacks) are or aren't getting resed?