Talk:Gank

Advice

Changed my last edit back, personal opinion or not, its advice, and an opinion shared by the majority of players, I'll clean it up so it doesnt carry my personal bit, but basically its valid and will stay.

--Nurizeko

Your new reviewed tone is a lot more neutral - only reason I deleted the last one was because it sounded like the sour grape of someone who had just been ganked. User:Kiltek/Sig 16:03, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, I apologise for the inappropriate tone of my original edit.

--Nurizeko

Hey,

Im Pvprules and I'm not so sure that "gankers" are frowned at. My main ganks people- i wait for them to engage combat, kill them or die, then move on- and i'm not frowned at.

--Well... PvP rules... 10:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Misleading statement

"Originally the term "gank" was only applied to situations where one side had an unsurmountable advantage, but this usage has degraded into being applied to most, if not all PvP encounters."

Not true; it's rarely used if the "PvP encounter" in question is anywhere near being a fair fight.

Here's how I've always understood it: If a 70 attacks a 50, that's a gank. If a 50 attacks another 50 who's being eaten alive by wolves in Felwood, that's a gank. But if a 50 attacks another 50 who's just running around flagged, the flagged player was probably looking for a fight (and has a fairly even chance of winning anyway). So that's not a gank...but it's certainly PvP. (If you trick another player into flagging—which is possible, even on PvE servers—that's another can o' worms altogether.)

User:QitelRemel/Sig 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)