So, a couple days ago a GM messaged me..

Q u o t e:
...for griefing, when I was constantly keeping the NPCs in the Ghostlands town dead at all times for about 6 straight hours.

There is line between furthering the ideal of PvP and completely impacting a zone's progression. Effectively eliminating relevant NPCs—NPCs which are likely quest givers and vendors pertinent to the flow of game play—within Ghostlands for a period over 6 hours is the latter. It's griefing, and it falls under our Zone/Area Disruption Policy, found here:

http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?articleId=20226

Q u o t e:
Zone/Area Disruption
This category includes language and/or actions intended to disturb groups of players or areas of the world, such as:

* Disruption of player sponsored events or gatherings
* Excessive use of in-game sounds or visuals
* Excessively casting spells with noticeable effects in crowded areas
* Impeding or blocking access to an NPC, doodad, doorway, or any other area of the world that a player would normally be able to access

I haven't yet confirmed this discourse, so I assume you were only warned, Breanis? If so, learn from this situation and move forward. :)

Q u o t e:
As much as I hate griefing, it is kind of dumb that quest NPCs are able to be attacked at all if you can be actioned for it.

You are welcome to kill the NPCs. You may not, however, do so in a manner which, by and large, completely impacts progression for an extended period of time.

We made Taurens large in stature. Does this permit all such Tauren characters to use their size creatively and block access to a mailbox for several hours on end? No. :)

Q u o t e:
You are fully allowed to gank, and camp, an entire quest hub (aka town) for as long as you like. It is *not* griefing.

I fear you're incorrect, Xsaint.

Q u o t e:
You're making one REALLY VAGUE rule here, perhaps you should have done your research BEFORE making the comment - as people are already running wild with it and considering it LAW.

This policy has been in effect since this game's inception. It's worked beautifully with both in-game mechanics and PvP philosophies, leaving neither progression nor world PvP in threat of persecution.

It's rare that one is able to completely inhibit a zone to the extent that interference is necessary. PvP is not in danger. Nor is your normal, every-day ganking. :)

Q u o t e:
Syndri, would constantly killing Nathaniel Blightcaller in EPL for the quest be considered griefing?

You're being purposely obtuse. It's not a flattering quality.

Edit: I hit "Post" instead of "Preview." Apologies. :)

Continuing: It would depend, regardless. Both on if you completely crippled zone progression and for what length of time you'd been camping the spawn point.

If you're looking for a specific set of guidelines, you're not going to find one. Again, this is a very rare event. I trust that, going forward, you'll take the warning and stride and try to limit your effects on a lower level's zone.

Q u o t e:
How pathetic is it that Blizzard would get involved on such an easily player resolved situation.

Should you be overly concerned with this particular facet of policy, you're welcome to challenge its placement within our Suggestions Forum. Contrary to well-held belief, we are always listening.

Q u o t e:
I'm just asking because Blizzard has put in specific quests to kill quest NPCs for the opposing faction, yet you also say its against the rules to keep them killed.

You, by your own admission, stated that you killed an entire area's NPC population for 6 hours. That is not identical to killing an NPC once, twice, or even thrice for a quest or general amusement. That, my good sir, is hindering the progression an entire zone.

I play on PvP realm. I am foreign to neither the act of being ganked or ganking myself. I have participated in (and had my corpse participated on, for that matter) in many "epic battles" and gankfests particular to Hillsbrad and Southshore. I understand and know intimately of the experiences you're describing.

This form of world of PvP, however—even including the event of camping a specific player on end for hours—is different than effectively eliminating a zone's progression by restricting access to its NPCs, vendors, and available doodads for an extended period of time.

Q u o t e:
I honestly and genuinely would understand such policy were there a group - even a small group - killing the NPCs in a town repeatedly for hours on end. But, seriously - ONE player?

One person can cause an equal amount of damage as five people. This is an irrelevant point.

Q u o t e:
Is 6 hours excessive? What about 1 hour? How about 30 minutes? Is there a definition to this somewhere? A guideline? Is a precedent being set in this thread?

No. A precedent is not being set in this thread.

All mitigating factors are taken into consideration: How many NPCs have been killed? How many times as the same NPC been killed? Over what period of time? How many were quests successfully completed during the time frame? Were quests even completed at all? It's a matter of context.

This is ultimately up to the discretion of the Game Master Department. Not you. Not your fellow players. You will not be provided with a set of guidelines, as guidelines can be exploited; you will, however, if found acting contrary to our rule sets, be warned.

Please understand that this is not a public forum insofar as all represented delegates are equal; you are not entitled to know the workings of our internal procedures, even in the most respectful manner.

Know this, however: Impeding access to an NPC is no different than impeding access to mailbox, or a specific vendor. Use your better judgment. Think twice before holding an entire zone hostage for an extended period time. Realize how your actions are cascading in effect against not one person, but an entire area's population and placed in-game mechanics.

Q u o t e:
How about if I gank and camp a player for an hour? I've done that so many times I couldn't begin to count. Hell, ask any guild member of Fist of Entropy on Wildhammer or any player that has wandered into Booty Bay who United in Arms is - they'll probably begin their description with a few expletives the forum would filter.

We're not discussing the killing of a player. We're discussing the complete removal of NPCs from a specific area for no less than 6 hours. There is a very, very large difference.

Q u o t e:
People may think that is sad or pathetic, but to me it's what I do for fun. I also gank and sometimes invade towns for fun. Until today, I have always read CM/GM responses on the forums that stated such actions had a PvP solution and did not require action on behalf of Blizzard.

Tell me: If you want to PvP, how does repeatedly killing all NPCs within a zone really contribute to this philosophy?

Q u o t e:
Really?

The result would have to be of stacking penalties, because our desire is to educate first. I sincerely doubt the congruity of the statement you're responding to, Xsaint.

Again, as I've said, it's rare that a player is able to achieve our intervention in such a manner. And when I say "rare," I mean it's an obscenely uncommon occurrence. We don't wish to compromise the spirit of PvP; however, ensuring that specific mechanical facets of the game are available to our players is a matter with which we do express consideration.

Q u o t e:
WTB that toon, I guess.

Five people could wipe out a zone's NPC population with more efficiency, aye. That does not mean, however, that one person—as witnessed—could not maintain the same hold on the region.

Q u o t e:
So 3 hour Tarren Mill / Southshore invasions would be actionable/warnable, no? I guess I'll find out, eventually.

Has it yet to glean a warning? Have such similar antics completely wiped out all available NPCs necessary for progression within an entire area for several hours on end without competition?

You're missing context, mate. There is a difference between repeatedly killing players and repeatedly annihilating NPCs responsible for the normal flow of play throughout a zone.

Q u o t e:
Seemed comparable, given the whole definition of impeding progression. I digress, I suppose.

Negative. I fear the two situations really aren't comparable at all. Overly repetitive PvQuestNPC is structurally different than PvP, as one is effectively eliminating a mechanical component from the game for extended periods of time—in this case, 6 hours.

In this same vein (though to a much, much smaller degree), we wouldn't allow a mailbox to be remain inaccessible for long, either, should a mounted Tauren or Elekk block player access.

Q u o t e:
Well, this is an easy answer - it's why anyone does it. To get PvP to happen. Why do people invade Tarren Mill, or Southshore? To get PvP to happen, of course this is the reason.

That's a viable tactic, sure. It's baiting. But repeatedly? For 6 hours on end? Upon each continual spawn? Of all NPCs in the area? This is no excuse for this behavior, though it's all contextual.

Q u o t e:
I am very disheartened to see the solution applied was telling players full scale town invasions *could* be against the rules.

At no point do the rules say this. At all. You're being—and I do apologize if you take this negatively, as I don't meant to insult—obtuse. =/


Feel comfortable in continuing to participate as you have, Xsaint. Do not, however, emulate the noted activity herein. I think you're worrying too heavily. I assure you, World PvP is safe. :)

Q u o t e:
Personally, keep doing it OP. Players like you are not needed in this game.

Hey Rickul, Breanis has ceased his argument. Until otherwise shown, there's no reason to assume that he or she has not taken the warning constructively. :)

Q u o t e:
I've been following this thread because it's a good read, and a good discussion. Having said that, is it really necessary to refer to a subscriber of your product as "obtuse".

I used "obtuse" in a strict sense, meaning blunt. My apology was to cover should it have been interpreted otherwise, as my intent was to not insult, but assert that the interpretations presented thus far were overly shortened or rounded in the face of our dialogue. I've no ill-will towards anyone in this particular conversation.

Tsk. None of that. ;)