Talk:Civilian

"Many complaints have been raised since their existence due to the fact it almost completely destroyed town/city raiding, due to the fact one Dishonorable Kill could destroy weeks of work for a high ranked player. However it has been announced that in patch 1.12 World PvP objectives will be released."

Some would say "Then stop attacking towns and cities, dolt".

PvP is player V player, I think its fair to mention in the article that raiding a town or city is just a large scale form of lowbie gank greif and NPC killing greif.

You don't attack a city unless your intentionally greifing, simple as.

This its fair to mention that PoV.

--Nurizeko

I somewhat concur. I'm a seasoned WPVPist no doubt, but even in my time I've found the assault on minor cities is simply for the sake of griefing the lower levels. However, it is worth noting this is often done by other groups as a way of attracting greater numbers of higher levelled players, effectively spurring a decent battle providing there's enough arrivals from the other side. More often than not, however, this can backfire completely and WPVP groups can stand at isolated enemy locations for hours upon end without a fair battle, reduced to repeatedly slaughtering small dens of civilans forever more. The main reason why I personally classed the inclusion of DKs unfair, was the problems they caused during absolute sieges on enemy cities. I am not sure if this is still true (haven't tested since TBC, actually) but each faction leader kill gave several thousand honour spread all across the raid. Of course the inclusion of all the possible DKs leading up to that moment (even in Horde cities, heh) would entirely negate the point of ever making the kill to begin with. And if you've ever been part of a real city raid - assaulting or defending - you'll know why the exclusion of DKs is so important and would ruin the epic feel. Melaisis 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)