Blizzard selling WoW pets for real money
ScratchMonkey
store/
http://www.wow.com/2009/11/05/a-wow-players-guide-to-microtransactions/
Now we know what Battle.net is for. It's another way to squeeze more gold
eggs out of the goose. I don't plan on buying any.
Shiflet
"ScratchMonkey" <ScratchMonk...@sewingwitch.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBAB9E077B...@188.40.43.245...
That made me sad. I was wanting both those pets since they were discovered
on the PTR, but $10 each? Ouch:-/
Polarhound
People pay hundreds upon hundreds for pets and loot out of TCG sets.
Consider this a discount.
Shiflet
"Polarhound" <polar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:R8NIm.442$Wf2...@newsfe23.iad...
> People pay hundreds upon hundreds for pets and loot out of TCG sets.
I've always considered those people retards though, so I try to avoid basing
my decisions on what they do.
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
oYNIm.3794$Zu5...@newsfe24.iad :
> "Polarhound" <polar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:R8NIm.442$Wf2...@newsfe23.iad...
>
>> People pay hundreds upon hundreds for pets and loot out of TCG sets.
>
> I've always considered those people retards though
...
Well thank you very much.
And yes, I bought the two pets in the Blizzard Shop.
Different people, different strokes.
Don't be so quick to condemn.
--
Permanently behind me: SWG & Age Of Conan.
Currently playing: WoW, LOTRO, WAR & Aion.
Waiting for: Dawntide, STOnline & Mytheon.
Kedge
considering "Half of the proceeds to every Pandaren Monk purchased
through December 31, 2009 will be donated to the Make-a-Wish
Foundation" I don't see this as a big issue really. I'm getting one.
Shiflet
"Thomas Hejl Pilgaard" <t.pil...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote in message
news:01380044$0$14145$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> ...
> Well thank you very much.
You're welcome.
> And yes, I bought the two pets in the Blizzard Shop.
> Different people, different strokes.
>
> Don't be so quick to condemn.
Sorry, if you spend hundreds of dollars on a minipet that just sits there,
you're a moron in my book. I've got 99 minipets in my collection, so I'm
definitely what you'd call a collector, but spending hundreds of dollars on
a loot card? No fucking way.
nuts
They're probably starting with vanity pets to see if the
microtransaction model can work in Wow.
Let's hope it doesn't.
Shiflet
"Kedge" <Richard...@arval.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ce79ce55-634c-4feb...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> considering "Half of the proceeds to every Pandaren Monk purchased
> through December 31, 2009 will be donated to the Make-a-Wish
> Foundation" I don't see this as a big issue really. I'm getting one.
They're not donating half the proceeds of every Lil' K'T though, I notice.
Insane Ranter
They kinda techinacally do with the server transfers, race changes,
etc.
Catriona R
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 02:11:36 -0600, "Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net>
wrote:
>"Thomas Hejl Pilgaard" <t.pil...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote in message
>news:01380044$0$14145$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> And yes, I bought the two pets in the Blizzard Shop.
>> Different people, different strokes.
>>
>> Don't be so quick to condemn.
>
>Sorry, if you spend hundreds of dollars on a minipet that just sits there,
>you're a moron in my book. I've got 99 minipets in my collection, so I'm
>definitely what you'd call a collector, but spending hundreds of dollars on
>a loot card? No fucking way.
I wouldn't put it so strongly but yeah, it's just stupid wasting real
life money on a virtual pet; I'm a collector myself (on 98 atm so much
the same as you!) but I'll never waste money on trading cards or even
the not so expensive ones they've added now. I just really dislike the
idea of mixing real world money with ingame items - I always hated
goldselling and this is just a variation on it, albeit a legal one.
Having said that, knowing my bf plays wow too, I suspect there's more
than a small chance I'll get one of them for Xmas... I wouldn't pay it
myself though, although I won't complain if I do get one that way ;-)
--
EU-Draenor:
Sagart (80 Undead Priest)
Tairbh (80 Tauren Druid)
Buinne (78 Troll Shaman)
Eilnich (70 Blood Elf Warlock)
Ruire (70 Blood Elf Paladin)
Blackheart - US - PvP
> "Thomas Hejl Pilgaard" <t.pilga...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote in messagenews:01380044$0$14145$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> > ...
> > Well thank you very much.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > And yes, I bought the two pets in the Blizzard Shop.
> > Different people, different strokes.
>
> > Don't be so quick to condemn.
>
> Sorry, if you spend hundreds of dollars on a minipet that just sits there,
> you're a moron in my book. I've got 99 minipets in my collection, so I'm
> definitely what you'd call a collector, but spending hundreds of dollars on
> a loot card? No fucking way.
cool story bro
Blackheart - US - PvP
only a matter of time before they're selling epics and gold.
and that's good. why? because the dregs will pull the rage-quit card.
and that only increases the win, because they either carry out the
threat and those of us that are normal socially adjusted rational
people that play for fun don't have to deal with them anymore. Or they
don't and open themselves to further ridicule.
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
PUQIm.22110$1g6....@newsfe10.iad :
Do you feel the same way about people collecting stamps and
spending a lot of money on a rare stamp?
People collecting base ball cards and spending a lot on rare cards?
People who collect <insert random collectible item> and spend a lot
on rares?
How do you feel about people who make the following statement?:
"You've sat in front of your computer for days, doing the same
stuff over and over, just to get a rare, completely virtual item
in some computer game? - You're a moron."
I wouldn't call anyone a moron over either choice, as they are
personal and relevant to said person. But given the choice, I would
personally rather spend some of my money (I can easily earn more)
than spend some of my time (of which I can never get more).
---
nuts
Yeah but that's different, as you had no means (correct me if I'm wrong)
to do those things in-game.
Selling game stuff with microtransactions is another thing altogether,
although for now it doesn't affect gameplay. If they'd switch to selling
armor/weapons it would give players an advantage based on money paid
instead of skill.
I don't ever run free-to-play MMOs for this reason.
Catriona R
>Shiflet <rshi...@charter.net> declared in:
>PUQIm.22110$1g6....@newsfe10.iad :
>> "Thomas Hejl Pilgaard" <t.pil...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote in message
>> news:01380044$0$14145$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>> ...
>>> Well thank you very much.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>>> And yes, I bought the two pets in the Blizzard Shop.
>>> Different people, different strokes.
>>>
>>> Don't be so quick to condemn.
>>
>> Sorry, if you spend hundreds of dollars on a minipet that just sits
>> there, you're a moron in my book. I've got 99 minipets in my
>> collection, so I'm definitely what you'd call a collector, but
>> spending hundreds of dollars on a loot card? No fucking way.
>
>Do you feel the same way about people collecting stamps and
>spending a lot of money on a rare stamp?
>People collecting base ball cards and spending a lot on rare cards?
>People who collect <insert random collectible item> and spend a lot
>on rares?
To me it feels different spending real life money on a real life item,
to spending it on a virtual item. You've got that stamp/card/whatever
for life (barring fires etc), you only have the pet for as long as the
WoW servers exist. Can't really explain it much better but I just
strongly feel that spending real life money on virtual items is not
right.
>How do you feel about people who make the following statement?:
>"You've sat in front of your computer for days, doing the same
>stuff over and over, just to get a rare, completely virtual item
>in some computer game? - You're a moron."
Not really the same, since you're having fun whilst playing (if you're
not, you shouldn't be doing it) and part of the fun is the working
towards the item. Nothing wrong with that.
>I wouldn't call anyone a moron over either choice, as they are
>personal and relevant to said person. But given the choice, I would
>personally rather spend some of my money (I can easily earn more)
>than spend some of my time (of which I can never get more).
That's an argument goldbuyers use a lot.
Shiflet
> Do you feel the same way about people collecting stamps and
> spending a lot of money on a rare stamp?
> People collecting base ball cards and spending a lot on rare cards?
> People who collect <insert random collectible item> and spend a lot
> on rares?
Yep, sure do. Trading cards, stamps, coins, whatever.
> How do you feel about people who make the following statement?:
> "You've sat in front of your computer for days, doing the same
> stuff over and over, just to get a rare, completely virtual item
> in some computer game? - You're a moron."
Why would I care? Sure, I consider it less moronic to spend one's time doing
something they enjoy than spending hundreds of dollars on something that
does nothing but sit there, cause at least you're being entertained. How
much entertainment is a person going to get from a TCG loot card they spent
$400 on? I actually KNOW people who've spent a lot of money on loot cards,
and the fact of the matter is, they rarely even have their expensive pet
out.
> I wouldn't call anyone a moron over either choice, as they are
> personal and relevant to said person.
Deciding to walk through a high crime neighbood at 2 am flashing hundred
dollar bills and wearing expensive clothes and jewelery is a personal choice
too, doesn't mean I think it's a smart one.
> But given the choice, I would personally rather spend some of my money (I
> can easily earn more) than spend some of my time (of which I can never get
> more).
If "spending my time" in a game becomes not fun, I'll quit playing the game,
rather than pay someone to avoid playing it.
Mark (newsgroups)
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 02:11:36 -0600, "Shiflet" <rshif...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Thomas Hejl Pilgaard" <t.pilga...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote in message
> >news:01380044$0$14145$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> >> And yes, I bought the two pets in the Blizzard Shop.
> >> Different people, different strokes.
>
> >> Don't be so quick to condemn.
>
> >Sorry, if you spend hundreds of dollars on a minipet that just sits there,
> >you're a moron in my book. I've got 99 minipets in my collection, so I'm
> >definitely what you'd call a collector, but spending hundreds of dollars on
> >a loot card? No fucking way.
>
> I wouldn't put it so strongly but yeah, it's just stupid wasting real
> life money on a virtual pet
By the same token it could be said to be stupid wasting real money on
a virtual game in any way. Also consider that money is relative, it
may seem a lot to you, but may be pocket change to some people (lucky
them). I'm sure that most people with that sort of money to spend are
probably either rich enough to not notice the difference, or
intelligent enough to judge the spend worthwhile for themselves.
Shiflet
"Catriona R" <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7liot8F...@mid.individual.net...
> To me it feels different spending real life money on a real life item,
> to spending it on a virtual item. You've got that stamp/card/whatever
> for life (barring fires etc), you only have the pet for as long as the
> WoW servers exist.
Good point. *I* still think it's stupid to spend hundreds on a
stamp/coin/card as well, but still, a good point.
> Not really the same, since you're having fun whilst playing (if you're
> not, you shouldn't be doing it) and part of the fun is the working
> towards the item. Nothing wrong with that.
Exactly. I play the game for fun, and I'd still be doing it even if there
wasn't pets or mounts to collect.
>>I wouldn't call anyone a moron over either choice, as they are
>>personal and relevant to said person. But given the choice, I would
>>personally rather spend some of my money (I can easily earn more)
>>than spend some of my time (of which I can never get more).
>
> That's an argument goldbuyers use a lot.
This is a good point as well. For Thomas, I am now curious, do you oppose
players buying in game gold from say Susan Express or fully leveled toons
off Ebay? If so, is it because you oppose the principle, or simply because
it's against the ToS? If Blizzard started selling say, gold, or emblems of
triumph("hey, now I don't have to spend my valuable time running heroics
over and over, I can get full epic gear for money which I can always get
more of") in the Bnet store, would that be something you'd be okay with?
Shiflet
"Blackheart - US - PvP" <blackhear...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ad594531-f863-409b...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> only a matter of time before they're selling epics and gold.
>
>and that's good. why? because the dregs will pull the rage-quit card.
and that only increases the win, because they either carry out the
threat and those of us that are normal socially adjusted rational
people that play for fun don't have to deal with them anymore. Or they
don't and open themselves to further ridicule.
Do we really need another reason to ridicule them? All I really see the
above doing would be to allow normally poor players to deck themselves out
in top end gear and buy whatever rare stuff they normally couldn't afford,
thus granting them the chance to wave around their now suddenly well endowed
e-peens. And of course, if you mention they had to buy their gear, having
played D2 for years I can already tell you their response-"ur just jealous
cause you cant afford it noob".
Shiflet
> cool story bro
Glad you liked it brah.
Urbin
> "Catriona R" <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7liot8F...@mid.individual.net...
I haven't made up my mind whether I like or dislike this decision by
Blizzard, but I'll participate in the discussion any way.
> > Not really the same, since you're having fun whilst playing (if you're
> > not, you shouldn't be doing it) and part of the fun is the working
> > towards the item. Nothing wrong with that.
>
> Exactly. I play the game for fun, and I'd still be doing it even if there
> wasn't pets or mounts to collect.
Except these pets cannot be gotten through playing (and having fun while
doing it), so it's either "I'm willing to dish out the bucks" or "I'm happy
not having them". For some people this will be a matter of principle, for
others of a limit (say 10$ for a pet is ok, 20$ is too much) and for some
this will be fine no matter what the cost.
Also, I think there are degrees to this, it has been possible to "buy" pets
for quite some time, except you got something else with it, too. I can
imagine that there have been people who bought the "main" items to get the
"fringe benefit pet" thus making the pet the main item and turning the item
being sold into the fringe benefit...
- collectors editions of WoW, BC, WotLK
- trading cards for the off chance of a redemption code
- tickets to Blizzcon
- the life stream of Blizzcon
We'll never know if somebody with a picnic basket truly enjoys playing the
TCG and just got lucky or if they bought cards for hundreds of dollars and
threw the cards away or if they even e-bayed the code...
In the end, the question is whether it is so much more deplorable to buy an
in-game vanity pet (for real life money) than to change your characters
name, race, server or faction (also for real life money), something that has
been possible for some time (name change longer; faciton change shorter) and
seems to be generally accepted.
> >>I wouldn't call anyone a moron over either choice, as they are
> >>personal and relevant to said person. But given the choice, I would
> >>personally rather spend some of my money (I can easily earn more)
> >>than spend some of my time (of which I can never get more).
> >
> > That's an argument goldbuyers use a lot.
>
> This is a good point as well. For Thomas, I am now curious, do you oppose
> players buying in game gold from say Susan Express or fully leveled toons
> off Ebay? If so, is it because you oppose the principle, or simply because
> it's against the ToS?
I agree that Thomas' argument is dubious as it is indeed used by gold
buyers, and I hold the same opinion "if you don't enjoy the game, don't play
it" and "if you don't have the time to raid, don't think you have the right
to raid gear" etc.
However, there *is* one main difference in the consequences: Gold buyers
and account buyers/levelling service users hurt us normal players by
impacting the game: There is butting, account stealing, the (debated)
impact on the ecconomy, clueless players. All these are a consequence of
gold/character buying and they are detrimental to our enjoyment.
Buying a vanity pet from Blizz, that cannot be vendored or gotten otherwise
has absolutely no negative impact on my game play (except maybe for the
silent jelousy of not having a cool pet).
> If Blizzard started selling say, gold, or emblems of triumph("hey, now I
> don't have to spend my valuable time running heroics over and over, I can
> get full epic gear for money which I can always get more of") in the Bnet
> store, would that be something you'd be okay with?
I'm still undecided what I think of them selling vanitiy items (companions,
mounts, tabbards etc), with a slight tendence to think it's ok.
However, I am very certain I would absolutely hate it if they started
selling stuff that has an impact on game play/balance.
Cheers
Urbin
--
Dun Morogh-EU (PvE)
Urbin (80), Dwarven Hunter | Surana (64), Draenei Mage
Mymule (80), Gnomish Warlock | Kordosch (65), Human Death Knight
Sunh (79), Nightelven Priest | Juran (33), Nightelven Druid
Justin Thompson
<blackhear...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>only a matter of time before they're selling epics and gold.
>
>and that's good. why? because the dregs will pull the rage-quit card.
>and that only increases the win, because they either carry out the
>threat and those of us that are normal socially adjusted rational
>people that play for fun don't have to deal with them anymore. Or they
>don't and open themselves to further ridicule.
"those of us that are normal socially adjusted rational
people"
Are you sure? you include yourself in that group but cannot see a down
side in such a move from Blizz?
I think you have an overinflated opinion of yourself.
Cheers
twk
<ad594531-f863-409b...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Blackheart - US - PvP <blackhear...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 3:34�am, nuts <nuspam...@re.net> wrote:
> > ScratchMonkey wrote:
> > >http://www.wow.com/2009/11/04/blizzard-launches-real-money-in-game-pet-
> > > store/
> >
> > >http://www.wow.com/2009/11/05/a-wow-players-guide-to-microtransactions/
> >
> > > Now we know what Battle.net is for. It's another way to squeeze more gold
> > > eggs out of the goose. I don't plan on buying any.
> >
> > They're probably starting with vanity pets to see if the
> > microtransaction model can work in Wow.
> > Let's hope it doesn't.
>
> only a matter of time before they're selling epics and gold.
I doubt that will happen but I can appreciate the sarcasm. :-)
> and that's good. why? because the dregs will pull the rage-quit card.
> and that only increases the win, because they either carry out the
> threat and those of us that are normal socially adjusted rational
> people that play for fun don't have to deal with them anymore. Or they
> don't and open themselves to further ridicule.
What seems unfair about this, is if one uses real money to purchase a
companion, does it count toward any of the companion pet achievements?
I would vote no on this, same with the card game pets and mounts.
Anything that comes from outside the game should not lead to or count as
any sort of completion of anything started inside the game. It seems no
different than buying gold. If you have the real money, why not buy all
the gold you want/need to simply buy every pet/mount/whatever in the
game?
Buy pets, buy mounts, buy gold. Not good, not fair for everyone. Sure,
buy all the pets/mounts/whatever you want (no gold buying), but those
items shouldn't count toward any achievement, and certainly not any
quest that might apply.
--
Hypanthia, Night Elf, Shadow Priest, Enchantress/Herbalist.
Cowpattee, Tauren, Druid, Enchantress/Herbalist.
Shiflet
"Urbin" <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnhf8h7v...@stinky-local.trash.net...
> Except these pets cannot be gotten through playing (and having fun while
> doing it),
I was explaining the difference between spending time doing something in
game(such as trying to get a pet) and spending money for one. When I'm
playing the game I'm playing to have fun, and would be doing it with or
without the pet. If playing the game gets me a pet, cool but I'm not
"wasting my time doing the same thing over and over" if it's something I
want to be doing. If I get a pet out of it, cool, but even if I didn't, I'd
still be doing it cause, well, TBH, I like running around killing shit.
> so it's either "I'm willing to dish out the bucks" or "I'm happy
> not having them". For some people this will be a matter of principle, for
> others of a limit (say 10$ for a pet is ok, 20$ is too much) and for some
> this will be fine no matter what the cost.
I never argued that. I never even said people who bought them were morons, I
said the people paying hundreds of dollars for a TCG pet are morons, so
using the arguement "well hey $10 is nothing cause some people pay hundreds"
didn't really strike me as a convincing one.
> - collectors editions of WoW, BC, WotLK
OOC, *is* there any other benefit to getting these instead of the regular
editions other than the pet?
> - trading cards for the off chance of a redemption code
Considering the odds of getting a loot card, I wouldn't consider that real
bright either.
> - tickets to Blizzcon
I'd *really* hope someone didn't buy a ticket to Blizzcon because they
wanted a pet rather than caring about what was going on at Blizzcon.
> - the life stream of Blizzcon
Considering that cost $40 the same statement as above applies, although it's
not quite as extreme.
> We'll never know if somebody with a picnic basket truly enjoys playing the
> TCG and just got lucky or if they bought cards for hundreds of dollars and
> threw the cards away or if they even e-bayed the code...
This is true, we won't know unless they tell us(and even then, that assumes
they're being truthful), but I'll still see I find it moronic if they fall
into either of the latter categories.
> In the end, the question is whether it is so much more deplorable to buy
> an
> in-game vanity pet (for real life money) than to change your characters
> name, race, server or faction (also for real life money), something that
> has
> been possible for some time (name change longer; faciton change shorter)
> and
> seems to be generally accepted.
Faction and server I understand-they can rather drastically change the way
you play the game. If you have friends on another faction/server, being able
to play with them with your existing toons can be worth the price. I've
never been fond of name change or race change, either though.
> However, there *is* one main difference in the consequences: Gold buyers
> and account buyers/levelling service users hurt us normal players by
> impacting the game: There is butting, account stealing, the (debated)
> impact on the ecconomy, clueless players. All these are a consequence of
> gold/character buying and they are detrimental to our enjoyment.
Well, botting and account stealing sure, but clueless players are there
regardless of whether or not there's gold/character buying. I know people
who have leveled toons from 1 to 80 and still don't grasp a lot of basic
stuff about their own class(much less others), whereas OTOH, if I were to
buy a geared lvl 80 enhancement shaman or balance druid, I daresay I could
at least hold my own, as I've already spent a great deal of time reading up
on them. I'm familiar with their talents, their spells and abilities, their
glyphs, their specs, their stat priorities, their attack
rotation/priorities, and so on.
I've done as much in Diablo 2, in fact. I've never once leveled or built a
trap assassin, yet I can log on my friend Jaime's account, play her trapper,
and without any prior experience playing one I was able rush a player from
act 1 normal to act 5 hell, run hell baal/chaos games, and join a duel/pvp
game and stomp most of the players there, including other assassins who've
played their toons far longer than I'd played Jaime's sin.
> However, I am very certain I would absolutely hate it if they started
> selling stuff that has an impact on game play/balance.
Well, look at it this way-if Blizzard started selling gold and emblems(for
example), it could cut down on a lot of the botting/account stealing(why
should I log onto some iffy gold seller's site to buy 1k when I can just log
onto bnet and do the same thing with no risk?), so would that not make a
positive impact?
Shiflet
"twk" <t...@sleepless.knights.com> wrote in message
news:twk-FB4818.1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> What seems unfair about this, is if one uses real money to purchase a
> companion, does it count toward any of the companion pet achievements?
>
> I would vote no on this, same with the card game pets and mounts.
Not sure if your question was rhetorical or not, but they all DO count
towards achievements. I know people who've been working towards the various
achievements and their trading card pets/mounts do indeed count. And I've
also recently seen multiple people in Org and UC run to the mailbox, get the
"obtain a minipet" achievement, then immediately summon the monk or K'T.
twk
"Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net> wrote:
Yes I know they count. My point is that they shouldn't because they cost
real money. I was in sort of a hurry and couldn't phrase things quite
like I wanted to. I even clipped a whole huge rant! Luckily I spared
everyone from that. ha ha ha. (you're welcome)
PV
>life money on a virtual pet; I'm a collector myself (on 98 atm so much
>the same as you!) but I'll never waste money on trading cards or even
>the not so expensive ones they've added now. I just really dislike the
>idea of mixing real world money with ingame items - I always hated
>goldselling and this is just a variation on it, albeit a legal one.
I don't put it in the same ballpark at all. This is a toy, and in no way
affects your ability to play the game. If the item speeded up leveling, or
was wearable gear, THAT would be bad. Cute stuff that's there just to give
friends (we had someone give lil KT to our guildleader the other day,
anonymously) is perfectly fine. It would be nice if the loot card items
were all available this way - it would destroy the ridiculous market for
the foil cards. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>I think you have an overinflated opinion of yourself.
Blackheart? Perish the thought. Let him stay under his bridge. *
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
7liot8F...@mid.individual.net :
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:59:37 +0100, "Thomas Hejl Pilgaard"
> <t.pil...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote:
>
>> Shiflet <rshi...@charter.net> declared in:
>> PUQIm.22110$1g6....@newsfe10.iad :
>>
>>> Sorry, if you spend hundreds of dollars on a minipet that just sits
>>> there, you're a moron in my book. I've got 99 minipets in my
>>> collection, so I'm definitely what you'd call a collector, but
>>> spending hundreds of dollars on a loot card? No fucking way.
>>
>> Do you feel the same way about people collecting stamps and
>> spending a lot of money on a rare stamp?
>> People collecting base ball cards and spending a lot on rare cards?
>> People who collect <insert random collectible item> and spend a lot
>> on rares?
>
> To me it feels different spending real life money on a real life item,
> to spending it on a virtual item. You've got that stamp/card/whatever
> for life (barring fires etc), you only have the pet for as long as the
> WoW servers exist. Can't really explain it much better but I just
> strongly feel that spending real life money on virtual items is not
> right.
It's a valid point. But consider that people buy it knowing that,
and also consider the longevity of Blizzard games - Diablo 2 is
still actively being played.
And the same argument can be (and is by some people) raised against
the very game itself - it's completely virtual, and also only lasts
as long as the servers are running... Why do you continue to pay for
the game every month, knowing full well that you will only have your
characters as long as the servers are running?
And your answer can be used in defense of the pets as well:
Because YOU are having fun with it.
>> How do you feel about people who make the following statement?:
>> "You've sat in front of your computer for days, doing the same
>> stuff over and over, just to get a rare, completely virtual item
>> in some computer game? - You're a moron."
>
> Not really the same, since you're having fun whilst playing (if you're
> not, you shouldn't be doing it) and part of the fun is the working
> towards the item. Nothing wrong with that.
I VERY much get the feeling of having "worked towards" getting the pets.
Even if they are bought. - It's not like the money came out of nowhere.
>> I wouldn't call anyone a moron over either choice, as they are
>> personal and relevant to said person. But given the choice, I would
>> personally rather spend some of my money (I can easily earn more)
>> than spend some of my time (of which I can never get more).
>
> That's an argument goldbuyers use a lot.
True.
I certainly don't endorse goldbuying as it is, but would consider it if
Blizzard was handling it. But that's a completely hypothetical situation
since we all know they would never do that.
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
KVWIm.7004$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad :
> "Catriona R" <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7liot8F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> I wouldn't call anyone a moron over either choice, as they are
>>> personal and relevant to said person. But given the choice, I would
>>> personally rather spend some of my money (I can easily earn more)
>>> than spend some of my time (of which I can never get more).
>>
>> That's an argument goldbuyers use a lot.
>
> This is a good point as well. For Thomas, I am now curious, do you
> oppose players buying in game gold from say Susan Express or fully
> leveled toons off Ebay?
Yes. Most definately so.
> If so, is it because you oppose the principle, or simply because
> it's against the ToS?
Because of the implications it has on gameplay, as well as the people
hurt by hacking, botting, scams and the in-game economy.
> If Blizzard started selling say, gold, or emblems of triumph ("hey, now
> I don't have to spend my valuable time running heroics over and over, I
> can get full epic gear for money which I can always get more of") in the
> Bnet store, would that be something you'd be okay with?
It's a very hypothetical situation, as I'm sure we both are of the belief
that this situation will never happen. But:
I would not be "okay" with it. It would change the game.
That said, I can't be sure if it would change the game into something that
I personally wouldn't play. That would depend greatly on the reactions of
the rest of the playerbase. A mass exodus of players would ruin the game,
I think. If we didn't see that however, it would then be a game in which
"rich characters" existed. Characters that would be "well off" from an RP
standpoint. Consider them people who won in the lotto, or inherited a rich
uncle. It would be a lot more unfair - just like reality is. So, more real
and unfair. I might actually be able to like a game like that.
After all, there is a lot more to WoW than just the economy and the
showing off-effect of having great gear. Not all aspects of the game would
be ruined, and I would consider all aspects before judging the change.
How would you feel if this only happened on select servers?
(That's an equally hypothetical situation, I admit)
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
slrnhf8h7v...@stinky-local.trash.net :
--
Permanently behind me: SWG & Age Of Conan.
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
slrnhf8h7v...@stinky-local.trash.net :
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:02:10 -0600, Shiflet wrote:
>> "Catriona R" <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:7liot8F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> I wouldn't call anyone a moron over either choice, as they are
>>>> personal and relevant to said person. But given the choice, I would
>>>> personally rather spend some of my money (I can easily earn more)
>>>> than spend some of my time (of which I can never get more).
>>>
>>> That's an argument goldbuyers use a lot.
>
> I agree that Thomas' argument is dubious as it is indeed used by gold
> buyers, and I hold the same opinion "if you don't enjoy the game,
> don't play it" and "if you don't have the time to raid, don't think
> you have the right to raid gear" etc.
I do enjoy the game, I simply meant that generally, I consider time to
be a much more valuable commodity than money. So to continue from
another part of this thread, if I had the option to buy tokens in the
store, I would play the instances in which they dropped because that
is fun, and I would consider buying extra tokens in order to free up
some game time to spend on OTHER fun things in the game.
It's actually a problem to me that Blizzard has created such a hugely
enjoyable game, as I am very greedy when it comes to experiencing it.
I want all of it, and I just don't have the time for that.
> However, there *is* one main difference in the consequences: Gold
> buyers and account buyers/levelling service users hurt us normal
> players by impacting the game: There is butting, account stealing,
> the (debated) impact on the ecconomy, clueless players. All these are
> a consequence of gold/character buying and they are detrimental to
> our enjoyment.
Exactly. I definately do not endorse buying gold, leveling or anything
not offered officially by Blizzard. But I would consider whatever they
offered. I think.
>> If Blizzard started selling say, gold, or emblems of triumph("hey,
>> now I don't have to spend my valuable time running heroics over and
>> over, I can get full epic gear for money which I can always get
>> more of") in the Bnet store, would that be something you'd be okay
>> with?
>
> I'm still undecided what I think of them selling vanitiy items
> (companions, mounts, tabbards etc), with a slight tendence to think
> it's ok.
>
> However, I am very certain I would absolutely hate it if they started
> selling stuff that has an impact on game play/balance.
I think I would too initially.
But I would consider if it really ruined that much of the game for me.
Brian C
>>
>>I've always considered those people retards though
>
> They certainly are.
Consider that, to many people, "hundreds" of dollars is not very much money.
I don't even collect pets, but I spent the measly $10 on K.T. because I
thought it was interesting. While I certainly haven't spent hundreds of
dollars on TCG loot, I don't see what's so bad about the people that do.
To say someone is "certainly" retarded because they choose to spend money in
different ways than you is laughable. Everyone with disposable income spends
some of it on leisure activities, whether or not that is smart spending is
100% subjective.
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
dhYIm.1375$W77...@newsfe11.iad :
> "Urbin" <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnhf8h7v...@stinky-local.trash.net...
>> - collectors editions of WoW, BC, WotLK
>
> OOC, *is* there any other benefit to getting these instead of the
> regular editions other than the pet?
Depends on who you are.
Some people greatly enjoy the other additions, like the mouse-pad,
art-book, soundtrack, making-of-dvd, and even the box being special.
This is actually also most of the reason I have for buying the TCG
loot cards. It gives my character something that makes it stand out
a bit. And it can cause a lot of amusement, not just for myself,
when in a waiting situation in the game. I find that the Sandbox
Spectral Tiger is especially loved by other people, as well as the
Ogre Pi�ata (who doesn't love hitting something, and then looting
it?... ^^)
Shiflet
>> If so, is it because you oppose the principle, or simply because
>> it's against the ToS?
>
> Because of the implications it has on gameplay, as well as the people
> hurt by hacking, botting, scams and the in-game economy.
So if a site could prove they got their selllable gold by hiring
players(obviously outside the US...) to farm it(there is businesses devoted
to that) rather than botting or scamming, would it be more okay to you?
> It's a very hypothetical situation, as I'm sure we both are of the belief
> that this situation will never happen.
We are? I'm not of the belief that it will never happen. I can totally see
it happening if the pets sell well.
> But: I would not be "okay" with it. It would change the game.
Would it? People already buy from non-approved sites, would the game
*truely* change if those people took their business to an official site
instead?
> That said, I can't be sure if it would change the game into something that
> I personally wouldn't play. That would depend greatly on the reactions of
> the rest of the playerbase. A mass exodus of players would ruin the game,
> I think.
THAT I don't see happening. I suspect the vast majority would whine, bitch,
complain, moan, and then...keep right on playing.
> If we didn't see that however, it would then be a game in which
> "rich characters" existed.
Wait, what? It's not already a game in which "rich characters" exist?
> Characters that would be "well off" from an RP standpoint.
It's not already? Choppers, 3 man mammoths, mount rewards for getting 100
mounts, pet rewards for getting 75 pets...maybe I'm totally misunderstanding
you here?
> How would you feel if this only happened on select servers?
> (That's an equally hypothetical situation, I admit)
I wouldn't care. Same as I wouldn't care if they did it on all servers.
Unlike most people, I've NEVER opposed Blizzard selling gold, or epics, or
anything else. I may or may not consider the people BUYING them stupid, but
I hardly care if Blizzard sells them.
Shiflet
>> OOC, *is* there any other benefit to getting these instead of the
>> regular editions other than the pet?
>
> Depends on who you are.
> Some people greatly enjoy the other additions, like the mouse-pad,
> art-book, soundtrack, making-of-dvd, and even the box being special.
I was actually only asking cause I had no clue what(if anything) came with
the collector's edition other than the pets.
ScratchMonkey
news:KVWIm.7004$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad:
> This is a good point as well. For Thomas, I am now curious, do you
> oppose players buying in game gold from say Susan Express or fully
> leveled toons off Ebay? If so, is it because you oppose the principle,
> or simply because it's against the ToS? If Blizzard started selling
> say, gold, or emblems of triumph("hey, now I don't have to spend my
> valuable time running heroics over and over, I can get full epic gear
> for money which I can always get more of") in the Bnet store, would
> that be something you'd be okay with?
I'm annoyed at the pets only because of the double standard, "we can sell
stuff to players and no one else can". Other games manage to successfully
deal with mixing with the real world economy.
(I don't begrudge Blizzard's right to make whatever arbitrary rules they
want, but that doesn't mean I have to like them. It's certainly not
inspiring me to invite others to play the game.)
DarkRose
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:50:38 -0600, "Shiflet" <rshif...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Polarhound" <polarho...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:R8NIm.442$Wf2...@newsfe23.iad...
>
> >> People pay hundreds upon hundreds for pets and loot out of TCG sets.
>
> >I've always considered those people retards though
>
> They certainly are.
>
I thought it was a bit much until I read a little closer and saw once
you buy it's good for ALL current AND future toons on the account,
that makes it s alittle easier to justify. And half of the money from
the Pandarin goes to Make-A-Wish, isn't a bad thing, though it's a
charity I have some very serious disagreements with in their
policies...
Urbin
>
> "Urbin" <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnhf8h7v...@stinky-local.trash.net...
>
> > not having them". For some people this will be a matter of principle, for
> > others of a limit (say 10$ for a pet is ok, 20$ is too much) and for some
> > this will be fine no matter what the cost.
>
> I never argued that. I never even said people who bought them were morons, I
> said the people paying hundreds of dollars for a TCG pet are morons, so
> using the arguement "well hey $10 is nothing cause some people pay hundreds"
> didn't really strike me as a convincing one.
Ok, fair enough. I thought you had meant anyone paying real life money for
an in game pet was a moron and thought that a bit drastic :-) If you were
just refering to those paying absurd amounts for a loot card on e-bay I'm
all with you :)
> > - collectors editions of WoW, BC, WotLK
>
> OOC, *is* there any other benefit to getting these instead of the regular
> editions other than the pet?
I only have the WotLK CE and that came with a book full of cool sketches,
though after browsing through once that was that. For me, the main
incentives were the pet and the CD with the cool soundtrack. There was also
a mouse mat and a couple of packs of the TCG in there. I'm still using the
mouse mat (because it's a good mat, not because of the artwork) but haven't
touched the TCG cards apart from unpacking them and redeeming the one item I
was lucky enough to have. Would I have bought it just for the pet? Not at
the price it cost me.
> > - trading cards for the off chance of a redemption code
>
> Considering the odds of getting a loot card, I wouldn't consider that real
> bright either.
I didn't say it was bright, I just said it was a "precedent" where it was
already possible to get a companion for money.
> > - tickets to Blizzcon
>
> I'd *really* hope someone didn't buy a ticket to Blizzcon because they
> wanted a pet rather than caring about what was going on at Blizzcon.
Hehe, I agree with you totally, but then you never know with people.
> > - the life stream of Blizzcon
>
> Considering that cost $40 the same statement as above applies, although it's
> not quite as extreme.
On the other hand, there are obviously people dishing out hundreds of bucks
for TCG codes, so 40$ would be a bargain in compariosn ;-)
> Faction and server I understand-they can rather drastically change the way
> you play the game. If you have friends on another faction/server, being able
> to play with them with your existing toons can be worth the price. I've
> never been fond of name change or race change, either though.
>
> > However, there *is* one main difference in the consequences: Gold buyers
> > and account buyers/levelling service users hurt us normal players by
> > impacting the game: There is butting, account stealing, the (debated)
> > impact on the ecconomy, clueless players. All these are a consequence of
> > gold/character buying and they are detrimental to our enjoyment.
>
> Well, botting and account stealing sure, but clueless players are there
> regardless of whether or not there's gold/character buying
True enough about the clueless ones...
> > However, I am very certain I would absolutely hate it if they started
> > selling stuff that has an impact on game play/balance.
>
> Well, look at it this way-if Blizzard started selling gold and emblems(for
> example), it could cut down on a lot of the botting/account stealing(why
> should I log onto some iffy gold seller's site to buy 1k when I can just log
> onto bnet and do the same thing with no risk?), so would that not make a
> positive impact?
It would cut down on the botting and account stealing but it would still
give people willing to dish out that kind of money an advantage over those
who wouldn't and that's where the main problem is.
Sell in game vanity stuff? Fine by me. Sell stuff that makes a difference in
game play? No way.
Cheers
Urbin
--
Dun Morogh-EU (PvE)
Urbin (80), Dwarven Hunter | Surana (64), Draenei Mage
Mymule (80), Gnomish Warlock | Kordosch (65), Human Death Knight
Sunh (80), Nightelven Priest | Juran (33), Nightelven Druid
Brent Stroh
>Yes I know they count. My point is that they shouldn't because they cost
>real money. I was in sort of a hurry and couldn't phrase things quite
>like I wanted to. I even clipped a whole huge rant! Luckily I spared
>everyone from that. ha ha ha. (you're welcome)
If the achievement offered a tangible in-game benefit, I'd agree. However,
moving a meaningless number 10 points higher and maybe providing (yet
another) purely cosmetic pet doesn't strike me as hugely imbalancing.
If there were only 98 in-game pets to obtain, and $20 was the only way to
get the achievement, I'd also be slightly more opposed, I suppose.
--
Mertuka - Rogue (80) : Mallan - Priest (48) : Medanu - Druid (55)
Ralinth - Warlock (80) : Magorg - Hunter (48) : Ralethian - Paladin (60)
Rakhalga - DK (80) : Meedak - Mage (60) : Rahuraluna - Shaman (60)
Relikag - Warrior (10)
Shiflet
"Urbin" <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> Ok, fair enough. I thought you had meant anyone paying real life money for
> an in game pet was a moron and thought that a bit drastic :-) If you were
> just refering to those paying absurd amounts for a loot card on e-bay I'm
> all with you :)
Aye, those were the ones I was referring to.
> I only have the WotLK CE and that came with a book full of cool sketches,
> though after browsing through once that was that. For me, the main
> incentives were the pet and the CD with the cool soundtrack. There was
> also
> a mouse mat and a couple of packs of the TCG in there. I'm still using the
> mouse mat (because it's a good mat, not because of the artwork) but
> haven't
> touched the TCG cards apart from unpacking them and redeeming the one item
> I
> was lucky enough to have. Would I have bought it just for the pet? Not at
> the price it cost me.
I got WotLK as a Christmas gift so no CE, but after reading the information,
I'm okay with that. Sure, I'd like the pet, but it's not worth enough to me
to justify the added cost. Especially since my current mousepad is fine, I'd
never listen to the soundtrack(I don't even listen to it in game, I have
music disabled), and I don't play the card game.
>> Considering the odds of getting a loot card, I wouldn't consider that
>> real
>> bright either.
>
> I didn't say it was bright, I just said it was a "precedent" where it was
> already possible to get a companion for money.
Yeah, I was just saying my original view still applied in this situation as
well, heh.
> It would cut down on the botting and account stealing but it would still
> give people willing to dish out that kind of money an advantage over those
> who wouldn't
Well, devoting hours of your time raiding or farming gives an advantage over
those players who can't or won't do it, so if someone is willing to turn
their real world effort into in game advantages, who am I to stop em. It's
not like there's not already plenty of players with advantages over plenty
of others as it is...might even balance it up a bit.
> Sell in game vanity stuff? Fine by me. Sell stuff that makes a difference
> in
> game play? No way.
Me, I don't care either way. I won't be spending wads of cash on stuff from
the store if they added it, but if someone else does, I don't care to be
honest.
> Cheers
> Urbin
twk
Brent Stroh <bms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> twk <t...@sleepless.knights.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes I know they count. My point is that they shouldn't because they cost
> >real money. I was in sort of a hurry and couldn't phrase things quite
> >like I wanted to. I even clipped a whole huge rant! Luckily I spared
> >everyone from that. ha ha ha. (you're welcome)
>
> If the achievement offered a tangible in-game benefit, I'd agree. However,
> moving a meaningless number 10 points higher and maybe providing (yet
> another) purely cosmetic pet doesn't strike me as hugely imbalancing.
I agree with you there. In this case it's not a big deal.
Like a few before me, I hope this is not a trend.
I happen to like the Make A Wish Foundation. I may buy one myself.
> If there were only 98 in-game pets to obtain, and $20 was the only way to
> get the achievement, I'd also be slightly more opposed, I suppose.
--
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
M90Jm.5784$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad :
> "Thomas Hejl Pilgaard" <t.pil...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote in message
> news:00efeed3$0$6700$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>>> If so, is it because you oppose the principle, or simply because
>>> it's against the ToS?
>>
>> Because of the implications it has on gameplay, as well as the people
>> hurt by hacking, botting, scams and the in-game economy.
>
> So if a site could prove they got their selllable gold by hiring
> players(obviously outside the US...) to farm it(there is businesses
> devoted to that) rather than botting or scamming, would it be more
> okay to you?
It would still hurt the in-game economy as well as access to farmable
ressources for the playerbase, since the farmers would be camping it.
Not to mention the obnoxious in-game gold-selling spam.
>> It's a very hypothetical situation, as I'm sure we both are of the
>> belief that this situation will never happen.
>
> We are? I'm not of the belief that it will never happen. I can
> totally see it happening if the pets sell well.
We'll see. Because the pets will sell well.
>> But: I would not be "okay" with it. It would change the game.
>
> Would it? People already buy from non-approved sites, would the game
> *truely* change if those people took their business to an official
> site instead?
I believe it would, yes.
A lot of people refrain from buying gold because of the implications
it currently has on the game, as well as the fact that Blizzard frowns
on it. Yes, some people are definately engaging in it, but I fear it
would be many times more people who engaged in it, if it was endorsed
by Blizzard.
>> That said, I can't be sure if it would change the game into
>> something that I personally wouldn't play. That would depend greatly
>> on the reactions of the rest of the playerbase. A mass exodus of
>> players would ruin the game, I think.
>
> THAT I don't see happening. I suspect the vast majority would whine,
> bitch, complain, moan, and then...keep right on playing.
>
>> If we didn't see that however, it would then be a game in which
>> "rich characters" existed.
>
> Wait, what? It's not already a game in which "rich characters" exist?
>
>> Characters that would be "well off" from an RP standpoint.
>
> It's not already? Choppers, 3 man mammoths, mount rewards for getting
> 100 mounts, pet rewards for getting 75 pets...maybe I'm totally
> misunderstanding you here?
I'm arguing that characters in the game would have a lot of gold,
not because of what the characters themselves had done. Gold they
hadn't earned themselves.
Apparantly that's something a lot of people would cry foul about.
They have this strange idea that all characters should have a level
playing field. This is no more apparant than in the constant crying
for nerfs to this or that class/ability.
Which is kinda silly, because some people have more gaming skill
than others, and everyone is ok with that, so SOME unevenness is
apparantly accepted.
Personally, I would consider it interesting if characters weren't
born equal. If we had poor characters, rich characters, characters
with low charisma who couldn't get good deals from the vendors,
and even disabilities. At least from a role-playing perspective.
Shiflet
> It would still hurt the in-game economy as well as access to farmable
> ressources for the playerbase, since the farmers would be camping it.
Farmers already camp resources, and not just gold sellers.
> Not to mention the obnoxious in-game gold-selling spam.
Spam will always be in game, regardless of gold selling.
> I believe it would, yes.
> A lot of people refrain from buying gold because of the implications
> it currently has on the game, as well as the fact that Blizzard frowns
> on it. Yes, some people are definately engaging in it, but I fear it
> would be many times more people who engaged in it, if it was endorsed
> by Blizzard.
Then everything would be balanced, no? Rather than a handful of people
having a gold advantage because they buy from Susan, a lot more people would
be on the same playing field.
> I'm arguing that characters in the game would have a lot of gold,
> not because of what the characters themselves had done. Gold they
> hadn't earned themselves.
Like lvl 1 toons with 20k on then?
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
y5bJm.3834$Sw5...@newsfe16.iad :
> "Thomas Hejl Pilgaard" <t.pil...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote in message
> news:005c167b$0$1798$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> It would still hurt the in-game economy as well as access to farmable
>> ressources for the playerbase, since the farmers would be camping it.
>
> Farmers already camp resources, and not just gold sellers.
True.
For some reason, this is viewed slightly more acceptable because
these farmers will sell the farmed items for the profit of their
own characters.
>> Not to mention the obnoxious in-game gold-selling spam.
>
> Spam will always be in game, regardless of gold selling.
But getting rid of one type of spam, even if other types remained,
would be most welcome. So I don't consider the fact that it will
always exist to be an argument for anything.
>> I believe it would, yes.
>> A lot of people refrain from buying gold because of the implications
>> it currently has on the game, as well as the fact that Blizzard
>> frowns on it. Yes, some people are definately engaging in it, but I
>> fear it would be many times more people who engaged in it, if it was
>> endorsed by Blizzard.
>
> Then everything would be balanced, no? Rather than a handful of people
> having a gold advantage because they buy from Susan, a lot more
> people would be on the same playing field.
A lot of people wouldn't see it that way, though.
Whether they weren't willing to spend as much on gold as others, or
simply didn't have as much to spend on gold, they wouldn't consider
the playing field to be even.
>> I'm arguing that characters in the game would have a lot of gold,
>> not because of what the characters themselves had done. Gold they
>> hadn't earned themselves.
>
> Like lvl 1 toons with 20k on then?
Something like that, yes.
I guess people mostly use this argument because they think it's unfair
that others can have outfitted characters with a lot less effort than
what they themselves had to go through? We see this whenever the leveling
process is eased as well.
Steve Kaye
> Urbin <ur...@invalid.invalid> declared in:
>> However, I am very certain I would absolutely hate it if they started
>> selling stuff that has an impact on game play/balance.
>
> I think I would too initially.
> But I would consider if it really ruined that much of the game for me.
I think that heirloom items are the best candidates to be sold first as
they don't really affect anyone other than the owner. They are good for
levelling but not good enough to keep at level 80 so aren't able to be
used to buy yourself into heroics, raids or PvP. Also, Blizzard seem to
want to give people the option of speeding past the lower levels.
I reckon that if they starting selling useful items it would be
something like that.
I didn't think that I'd like a game where you could buy in-game items
with real money but I'm playing Dungeons and Dragons Online at the
moment and it hasn't ruined the game for me. Along with extra content,
you can buy health potions, xp and loot boosting potions, buff potions,
weapons and armour. It doesn't look like the weapons and armour are
anything special - slightly better than I've seen drop myself but I've
not played past level 4 yet.
steve.kaye
--
Jengu - 80 Undead Death Knight Clokk - 74 Tauren Druid
Jelan - 80 Troll Priest Miho - 72 Blood Elf Rogue
Kibbs - 80 Blood Elf Paladin Jaille - 70 Blood Elf Warlock
Steve Kaye
We do? From personal experience, I don't know that at all. I "knew"
that Sony would never do it but I was wrong.
Shiflet
>> Spam will always be in game, regardless of gold selling.
>
> But getting rid of one type of spam, even if other types remained,
> would be most welcome. So I don't consider the fact that it will
> always exist to be an argument for anything.
Okay, I'll note this then-currently, gold selling spam is actually a LOT
less common on my servers than player spam, so should we not fix the bigger
problem first?
> A lot of people wouldn't see it that way, though.
> Whether they weren't willing to spend as much on gold as others, or
> simply didn't have as much to spend on gold, they wouldn't consider
> the playing field to be even.
If they consider the current field even they need to put down the crackpipe,
cause it's a lot less even NOW than it would be that way.
>> Like lvl 1 toons with 20k on then?
>
> Something like that, yes.
But we already have those.
> I guess people mostly use this argument because they think it's unfair
> that others can have outfitted characters with a lot less effort than
> what they themselves had to go through? We see this whenever the leveling
> process is eased as well.
Yeah, we saw lots of people bitch about how lowering the level requirement
of mounts was unfair and making the game too easy etc. Then as soon as their
newest alt hit level 20, they were right there getting their riding
training.
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
RqiJm.2122$We2....@newsfe09.iad :
> "Thomas Hejl Pilgaard" <t.pil...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote in message
> news:005c3106$0$1815$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>>> Spam will always be in game, regardless of gold selling.
>>
>> But getting rid of one type of spam, even if other types remained,
>> would be most welcome. So I don't consider the fact that it will
>> always exist to be an argument for anything.
>
> Okay, I'll note this then-currently, gold selling spam is actually a
> LOT less common on my servers than player spam, so should we not fix
> the bigger problem first?
Hm.
You're proposing that Blizzard "fix" the behaviour of their players?
No, of course not. You're proposing that they find ways to prevent
people from behaving badly. Filters, etc.
I can't think of anything that would be effective - people will always
find ways around such barriers and it will only irritate those who
don't behave badly.
Or do you have suggestions?
>> A lot of people wouldn't see it that way, though.
>> Whether they weren't willing to spend as much on gold as others, or
>> simply didn't have as much to spend on gold, they wouldn't consider
>> the playing field to be even.
>
> If they consider the current field even they need to put down the
> crackpipe, cause it's a lot less even NOW than it would be that way.
I think the "even playingfield" argument is their excuse.
In reality, they naturally want people to have to spend as much effort
as they have, or not get the benefits that they feel they have earned.
It's more about wanting to be special and not feeling like Blizzard is
being unfair. Childish, I guess.
>>> Like lvl 1 toons with 20k on then?
>>
>> Something like that, yes.
>
> But we already have those.
But they aren't the first character a player made.
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
hd49b7$227$1...@news.eternal-september.org :
> Thomas Hejl Pilgaard wrote:
>> Catriona R <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> declared in:
>> 7liot8F...@mid.individual.net :
>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:59:37 +0100, "Thomas Hejl Pilgaard"
>>> <t.pil...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote:
>
>>>> I wouldn't call anyone a moron over either choice, as they are
>>>> personal and relevant to said person. But given the choice, I would
>>>> personally rather spend some of my money (I can easily earn more)
>>>> than spend some of my time (of which I can never get more).
>>> That's an argument goldbuyers use a lot.
>>
>> True.
>> I certainly don't endorse goldbuying as it is, but would consider it
>> if Blizzard was handling it. But that's a completely hypothetical
>> situation since we all know they would never do that.
>
> We do? From personal experience, I don't know that at all. I "knew"
> that Sony would never do it but I was wrong.
Well, I still feel pretty secure in making the statement that Blizzard
never would. Sony? Not surprised at all. Greedy sons-of-b... Sorry.
I figure Diablo II would have been a perfect candidate for Blizzard to
dip their toes in micro-transactions with. There's a flourishing market
for items in that game. Have been for a while.
Shiflet
> Hm.
> You're proposing that Blizzard "fix" the behaviour of their players?
> No, of course not. You're proposing that they find ways to prevent
> people from behaving badly. Filters, etc.
> I can't think of anything that would be effective - people will always
> find ways around such barriers and it will only irritate those who
> don't behave badly.
> Or do you have suggestions?
Change their definition of spam. As it stands, spam(in Blizzards terms)
consists of repeating the same phrase multiple times in a 30 second
interval. Which is fine if the person is just posting "wts whatever" over
and over. But it's useless for people who spam say, "anal [skill]" or song
lyrics or whatnot, as they don't repeat the same phrase more than once per
30 seconds.
> I think the "even playingfield" argument is their excuse.
> In reality, they naturally want people to have to spend as much effort
> as they have, or not get the benefits that they feel they have earned.
> It's more about wanting to be special and not feeling like Blizzard is
> being unfair. Childish, I guess.
But if Blizzard was selling gold, it WOULD be fair, cause everyone would
have the same options about whether or not to buy it. If they use the
arguement "well some people don't have the money to spend to buy gold" well,
"not everone has the same amount of time to spend raiding/farming" so shall
we take the gear away from people who have raid gear that's better than what
other people have? I mean, it's "unfair" that they can get better gear/more
gold cause they have to spend less time working/taking care of their
families, no?
>>>> Like lvl 1 toons with 20k on then?
>>>
>>> Something like that, yes.
>>
>> But we already have those.
>
> But they aren't the first character a player made.
And? I don't think we'll see many level 1's with 20k gold as the first
character a player makes even if Blizz WAS selling gold.
Shiflet
> Hm.
> You're proposing that Blizzard "fix" the behaviour of their players?
> No, of course not. You're proposing that they find ways to prevent
> people from behaving badly. Filters, etc.
> I can't think of anything that would be effective - people will always
> find ways around such barriers and it will only irritate those who
> don't behave badly.
> Or do you have suggestions?
Change their definition of spam. As it stands, spam(in Blizzards terms)
consists of repeating the same phrase multiple times in a 30 second
interval. Which is fine if the person is just posting "wts whatever" over
and over. But it's useless for people who spam say, "anal [skill]" or song
lyrics or whatnot, as they don't repeat the same phrase more than once per
30 seconds.
> I think the "even playingfield" argument is their excuse.
> In reality, they naturally want people to have to spend as much effort
> as they have, or not get the benefits that they feel they have earned.
> It's more about wanting to be special and not feeling like Blizzard is
> being unfair. Childish, I guess.
But if Blizzard was selling gold, it WOULD be fair, cause everyone would
have the same options about whether or not to buy it. If they use the
arguement "well some people don't have the money to spend to buy gold" well,
"not everone has the same amount of time to spend raiding/farming" so shall
we take the gear away from people who have raid gear that's better than what
other people have? I mean, it's "unfair" that they can get better gear/more
gold cause they have to spend less time working/taking care of their
families, no?
>>>> Like lvl 1 toons with 20k on then?
>>>
>>> Something like that, yes.
>>
>> But we already have those.
>
> But they aren't the first character a player made.
And? I don't think we'll see many level 1's with 20k gold as the first
PV
>when in a waiting situation in the game. I find that the Sandbox
>Spectral Tiger is especially loved by other people, as well as the
>Ogre Pi�ata (who doesn't love hitting something, and then looting
>it?... ^^)
I *love* the bubble gum. *
PV
>I think that heirloom items are the best candidates to be sold first as
>they don't really affect anyone other than the owner. They are good for
>levelling but not good enough to keep at level 80 so aren't able to be
>used to buy yourself into heroics, raids or PvP. Also, Blizzard seem to
>want to give people the option of speeding past the lower levels.
The heirloom items are plenty good enough to do naxx or heroics with. I
don't think it would be acceptable to sell ANY kind of gear that actually
has a benefit in the game. If they do that, they may as well sell levels
too, and then they'll lose everyone. *
PV
>So if a site could prove they got their selllable gold by hiring
>players(obviously outside the US...) to farm it(there is businesses devoted
>to that) rather than botting or scamming, would it be more okay to you?
No, because it's still against the rules of the game, but it would be a lot
LESS unacceptable. If you buy gold as things stand, you are a complete
asshole because you're making a market for account hacking. My guild lost
over 100k worth of gold and raid consumables a couple weeks ago because an
officer got hacked (she's now demoted to the minimum rank until she gets an
authenticator), and it stopped us in our tracks for more than a week.
>We are? I'm not of the belief that it will never happen. I can totally see
>it happening if the pets sell well.
Blizzard isn't stupid. They know they will no longer be able to charge a
subscription fee if they sell real items. Not gonna happen.
>Would it? People already buy from non-approved sites, would the game
>*truely* change if those people took their business to an official site
>instead?
Yes, it would. Everyone would leave. *
PV
>For some reason, this is viewed slightly more acceptable because
>these farmers will sell the farmed items for the profit of their
>own characters.
There's no slightly and no "for some reason". Farming for things by playing
the game is one of the reasons TO play the game. *
>
>But getting rid of one type of spam, even if other types remained,
>would be most welcome. So I don't consider the fact that it will
>always exist to be an argument for anything.
You find spam to be a problem? I see maybe one of them a night, and they
instantly get spam reported off the server. WoW has less spam than any
online game I've seen. *
PV
>Okay, I'll note this then-currently, gold selling spam is actually a LOT
>less common on my servers than player spam, so should we not fix the bigger
>problem first?
I gleefully use "report spam" on repeat offenders on /trade or /general,
and it works great because they can't even change characters to annoy you.
And if enough people do it, they disappear completely. This is especially
fun to do to the "my server is down, so I'll stand in the middle of capital
cities and yell like a tard" people. *
PV
>Change their definition of spam. As it stands, spam(in Blizzards terms)
>consists of repeating the same phrase multiple times in a 30 second
>interval. Which is fine if the person is just posting "wts whatever" over
>and over. But it's useless for people who spam say, "anal [skill]" or song
>lyrics or whatnot, as they don't repeat the same phrase more than once per
>30 seconds.
You're wrong about this. I actually asked a GM about it after a long bout
of reporting [anal] spammers, and the GM said it's perfectly fine to use
the report spam feature for it. They even ban people for it - I know of two
people that got 3 day bans for endless stupid political talk on /trade. *
Shiflet
"PV" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:ypSdnZLGB7Rpe2jX...@supernews.com...
> You're wrong about this. I actually asked a GM about it after a long bout
> of reporting [anal] spammers, and the GM said it's perfectly fine to use
> the report spam feature for it. They even ban people for it - I know of
> two
> people that got 3 day bans for endless stupid political talk on /trade. *
LOL, not on my server. We have one dude who gets reported dead serious,
between 30 and 50 times a day for flooding trade with his sell
advertisements and song lyrics. The ONLY time he's been banned was when
someone was arguing with him about it and he called them a "stupid nigger"
which gave him a 3 day vacation, but after that, he was back to business as
usual. More than 1 person has asked a GM about what he does, and the reply
is always the same-"as long as what he does does not violate any of our
terms of service there is nothing we can do about it."
Shiflet
> Blizzard isn't stupid. They know they will no longer be able to charge a
> subscription fee if they sell real items. Not gonna happen.
They're ALREADY selling real items. I can totally see them going to the next
level with it if this level is successful.
> Yes, it would. Everyone would leave. *
LOL, right, sure they would. Also, as soon as I'm done posting this message,
I'm gonna hop on my privage jet, fly to DC, and see what I can do to help
with the current health care situation.
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
kmjJm.12407$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad :
> "Thomas Hejl Pilgaard" <t.pil...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote in message
> news:00f1308d$0$6715$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> Hm.
>> You're proposing that Blizzard "fix" the behaviour of their players?
>> No, of course not. You're proposing that they find ways to prevent
>> people from behaving badly. Filters, etc.
>> I can't think of anything that would be effective - people will
>> always find ways around such barriers and it will only irritate
>> those who don't behave badly.
>> Or do you have suggestions?
>
> Change their definition of spam. As it stands, spam(in Blizzards
> terms) consists of repeating the same phrase multiple times in a 30
> second interval. Which is fine if the person is just posting "wts
> whatever" over and over. But it's useless for people who spam say,
> "anal [skill]" or song lyrics or whatnot, as they don't repeat the
> same phrase more than once per 30 seconds.
I completely agree with that.
But changing the policy isn't going to make it go away.
What I was interested in knowing, was if you had any suggestions as
to HOW they could make it go away? You wanted to "fix player spam"
first, but what you bring up here is only a very very small fraction
of what constitutes player spam. Going after this one example won't
make a dent in the game experience.
And it is exactly the example I myself had in mind when I pondered
the effectiveness of actions against such behaviour. Filters? They
would simply find other words to spam, and if Blizzard tried to
keep up with them, the filter would end up a nuissance to people
who don't spam.
The only solution I can see are GM's monitoring the chatchannels 24/7
on every server. That's a pretty big added expense for Blizzard.
>> I think the "even playingfield" argument is their excuse.
>> In reality, they naturally want people to have to spend as much
>> effort as they have, or not get the benefits that they feel they
>> have earned. It's more about wanting to be special and not feeling
>> like Blizzard is being unfair. Childish, I guess.
>
> But if Blizzard was selling gold, it WOULD be fair, cause everyone
> would have the same options about whether or not to buy it. If they
> use the arguement "well some people don't have the money to spend to
> buy gold" well, "not everone has the same amount of time to spend
> raiding/farming" so shall we take the gear away from people who have
> raid gear that's better than what other people have? I mean, it's
> "unfair" that they can get better gear/more gold cause they have to
> spend less time working/taking care of their families, no?
We can agree on that.
But don't expect people who worked for their items to listen to that
kind of reason.
>>>>> Like lvl 1 toons with 20k on then?
>>>>
>>>> Something like that, yes.
>>>
>>> But we already have those.
>>
>> But they aren't the first character a player made.
>
> And? I don't think we'll see many level 1's with 20k gold as the first
> character a player makes even if Blizz WAS selling gold.
No, I guess you're right.
But it would inflate the AH prices. And that would hurt people who didn't
want to buy gold.
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
ypSdnZDGB7RleGjX...@supernews.com :
> You find spam to be a problem? I see maybe one of them a night, and
> they instantly get spam reported off the server. WoW has less spam
> than any online game I've seen. *
Yes, I find it to be a problem, because I see a lot more than you
apparantly do. From players and gold-spammers alike. It's really
bad.
Shiflet
> I completely agree with that.
> But changing the policy isn't going to make it go away.
> What I was interested in knowing, was if you had any suggestions as
> to HOW they could make it go away? You wanted to "fix player spam"
> first, but what you bring up here is only a very very small fraction
> of what constitutes player spam. Going after this one example won't
> make a dent in the game experience.
Their "Report Spam" is actually pretty good IF the spammer is actually
violating their definition of spam, the problem is, their definition is far
too lenient. If they'd simply expand their definition of what "spam" is,
people would continue to report, but then they wouldn't be told nothing can
be done because the person isn't violating any rules.
> We can agree on that.
> But don't expect people who worked for their items to listen to that
> kind of reason.
Well, some people won't listen to anything I suppose.
> No, I guess you're right.
> But it would inflate the AH prices. And that would hurt people who didn't
> want to buy gold.
I'd be curious to see it's effects, myself.
Catriona R
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:27:45 +0000, Catriona R
<catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>Having said that, knowing my bf plays wow too, I suspect there's more
>than a small chance I'll get one of them for Xmas... I wouldn't pay it
>myself though, although I won't complain if I do get one that way ;-)
Seems I know him too well, he just gave me the KT one lol (and he
doesn't read this group so didn't take any hint from here!) ;-)
--
EU-Draenor:
Sagart (80 Undead Priest)
Tairbh (80 Tauren Druid)
Buinne (78 Troll Shaman)
Balgair (71 Human Rogue)
Eilnich (70 Blood Elf Warlock)
Ruire (70 Blood Elf Paladin)
Catriona R
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:19:29 -0600, pv+u...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>Steve Kaye <nos...@giddy-kippers.co.uk> writes:
>>I think that heirloom items are the best candidates to be sold first as
>>they don't really affect anyone other than the owner. They are good for
>>levelling but not good enough to keep at level 80 so aren't able to be
>>used to buy yourself into heroics, raids or PvP. Also, Blizzard seem to
>>want to give people the option of speeding past the lower levels.
>
>The heirloom items are plenty good enough to do naxx or heroics with. I
>don't think it would be acceptable to sell ANY kind of gear that actually
>has a benefit in the game. If they do that, they may as well sell levels
>too, and then they'll lose everyone. *
*cough* Recruit-a-friend. Use that to get a 2nd account, and you just
bought yourself uber-fast levelling for the price of a 1 month
subscription. Ok, doesn't work past 60, but you can level superfast
and grant levels to the parent account. Not technically buying levels
but effectively works that way.
Catriona R
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:28:10 -0600, pv+u...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>"Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net> writes:
>>Okay, I'll note this then-currently, gold selling spam is actually a LOT
>>less common on my servers than player spam, so should we not fix the bigger
>>problem first?
>
>I gleefully use "report spam" on repeat offenders on /trade or /general,
>and it works great because they can't even change characters to annoy you.
>And if enough people do it, they disappear completely. This is especially
>fun to do to the "my server is down, so I'll stand in the middle of capital
>cities and yell like a tard" people. *
It's a pity that all the temporary blocks are lost when you change
character yourself, so if I'm switching between characters for
crafting and auctioning I have to reblock the same yellers 3-4 times
with it, if they're still yelling when I switch character. I do always
use "report spam" rather than just ignore though, since if they're
annoying me, chances are they're annoying others, and if a GM in the
right kind of mood comes along, lessons might be taught. Even if not
much happens it's worth trying!
Shiflet
"Palindrome" <butt...@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
news:iqadf51sk4qadp6el...@4ax.com...
> Get a chat filter addon such as Baud Spam Filter from curse.com and
> you'll never see any rubbish again. You can add any word you like,
> and any message containing the word will never even be seen. You can
> add a phrase too, such as "new guild", which is always a message worth
> avoiding. I absolutely love it.
I've used similar filters for email and have missed messages I didn't want
to miss because of it. I will not use such a filter again.
And as for always avoiding a "new guild" message, my AH toon stays guildless
and has made about 100g just from signing "new guild" charters. Sure, it's
not much money, but considering it involves no work whatsoever I certainly
won't pass the opportunity.
> It has blocked all of the usual spam, and I even set it to block out
> "plz" and "pls" as well, for good measure, and they have been blocked
> 827 times and 503 times, respectively. "Recruiting" has been blocked
> 356 times. I've even had 66 messages containing the word "boost"
> blocked 66 times.
Why would you block boost? "Do you use chain lightning in your rotation?
That could boost your DPS". Is the the sort of message you wanna block?
> Palindrome
Steve Kaye
> "Palindrome" <butt...@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
> news:iqadf51sk4qadp6el...@4ax.com...
>
>> Get a chat filter addon such as Baud Spam Filter from curse.com and
>> you'll never see any rubbish again. You can add any word you like,
>> and any message containing the word will never even be seen. You can
>> add a phrase too, such as "new guild", which is always a message worth
>> avoiding. I absolutely love it.
>
> I've used similar filters for email and have missed messages I didn't want
> to miss because of it. I will not use such a filter again.
Aggressive email filtering could result in you missing something
important. I very much doubt that missing a message in WoW would amount
to much of a problem.
> And as for always avoiding a "new guild" message, my AH toon stays guildless
> and has made about 100g just from signing "new guild" charters. Sure, it's
> not much money, but considering it involves no work whatsoever I certainly
> won't pass the opportunity.
>
>> It has blocked all of the usual spam, and I even set it to block out
>> "plz" and "pls" as well, for good measure, and they have been blocked
>> 827 times and 503 times, respectively. "Recruiting" has been blocked
>> 356 times. I've even had 66 messages containing the word "boost"
>> blocked 66 times.
>
> Why would you block boost? "Do you use chain lightning in your rotation?
> That could boost your DPS". Is the the sort of message you wanna block?
I'd assume that the filters will automatically pass for anyone in you
group, raid, guild or friends list and so you wouldn't miss that from
anyone that mattered to you much.
Shiflet
"Steve Kaye" <nos...@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hd7e46$mm7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Aggressive email filtering could result in you missing something
> important. I very much doubt that missing a message in WoW would amount
> to much of a problem.
I don't GET anything important in my email. That said, *I* don't like
missing unimportant things, either.
> I'd assume that the filters will automatically pass for anyone in you
> group, raid, guild or friends list and so you wouldn't miss that from
> anyone that mattered to you much.
If I'm in town and people are actually talking, it matters to me. I find
discussing the game fun(why do you think I post here?) and don't want to
miss game discussions while I'm in town.
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:19:29 -0600, pv+u...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>
>> Steve Kaye <nos...@giddy-kippers.co.uk> writes:
>>> I think that heirloom items are the best candidates to be sold
>>> first as they don't really affect anyone other than the owner. They
>>> are good for levelling but not good enough to keep at level 80 so
>>> aren't able to be used to buy yourself into heroics, raids or PvP.
>>> Also, Blizzard seem to want to give people the option of speeding
>>> past the lower levels.
>>
>> The heirloom items are plenty good enough to do naxx or heroics
>> with. I don't think it would be acceptable to sell ANY kind of gear
>> that actually has a benefit in the game. If they do that, they may
>> as well sell levels too, and then they'll lose everyone. *
>
> *cough* Recruit-a-friend. Use that to get a 2nd account, and you just
> bought yourself uber-fast levelling for the price of a 1 month
> subscription. Ok, doesn't work past 60, but you can level superfast
> and grant levels to the parent account. Not technically buying levels
> but effectively works that way.
I would if I could. The Zhevra is also quite enticing.
But my country has laws against unsolicited advertising, which makes
the recruit-a-friend unavailable to me.
Urbin
>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:28:10 -0600, pv+u...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>
> >"Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net> writes:
> >>Okay, I'll note this then-currently, gold selling spam is actually a LOT
> >>less common on my servers than player spam, so should we not fix the bigger
> >>problem first?
> >
> >I gleefully use "report spam" on repeat offenders on /trade or /general,
> >and it works great because they can't even change characters to annoy you.
> >And if enough people do it, they disappear completely. This is especially
> >fun to do to the "my server is down, so I'll stand in the middle of capital
> >cities and yell like a tard" people. *
>
> It's a pity that all the temporary blocks are lost when you change
> character yourself, so if I'm switching between characters for
> crafting and auctioning I have to reblock the same yellers 3-4 times
> with it, if they're still yelling when I switch character.
I was under the impression that the "Report Spam" feature blocked all
*their* characters from being seen on all *my* characters for the rest of
the day, though I never checked. So you're saying it's all *their*
characters on your *current* character? Or is this a problem because you
have two accounts and obviously it does not include ally our *accounts*?
> I do always use "report spam" rather than just ignore though, since if
> they're annoying me, chances are they're annoying others
Absolutely. It keeps my ignore list empty, if 10 people do it they get
investigated and they might or might not learn from a temp ban.
Cheers
Urbin
--
Dun Morogh-EU (PvE)
Urbin (80), Dwarven Hunter | Surana (64), Draenei Mage
Mymule (80), Gnomish Warlock | Kordosch (65), Human Death Knight
Sunh (80), Nightelven Priest | Juran (33), Nightelven Druid
Urbin
Aehm, would you mind telling us where you live, where RAF uses unsolicited
advertising and if you are unable to make use of the RAF feature on the
Blizzard webshop beause of where you live?
Either you are mistaken or I am missing a significant step in your
reasoning.
Shiflet
"Urbin" <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnhffk1q...@stinky-local.trash.net...
> So you're saying it's all *their* characters on your *current* character?
I don't know if it's all their characters or not, but I know I've reported
spamming on my main, then when I log onto an alt, I see the spam again, so
unless things have changed, it's not all of your characters.
Matt
> So you're saying it's all *their*
> characters on your *current* character?
It's this option. To be more precise, it's whole their account until
your logout (which includes char switch).
--
Regards
Matt
Matt
> Aehm, would you mind telling us where you live, where RAF uses unsolicited
> advertising and if you are unable to make use of the RAF feature on the
> Blizzard webshop beause of where you live?
>
> Either you are mistaken or I am missing a significant step in your
> reasoning.
A few features are disabled in a few countries due to dubious laws
about advertising, competitions, pyramid schemes and whatnot (not that
I think it makes any sense). For example in Poland I am unable to
access RAF or join the Arena Tournaments.
--
Regards
Matt
Catriona R
On 9 Nov 2009 08:18:02 GMT, Urbin <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:17:24 +0000, Catriona R wrote:
>> It's a pity that all the temporary blocks are lost when you change
>> character yourself, so if I'm switching between characters for
>> crafting and auctioning I have to reblock the same yellers 3-4 times
>> with it, if they're still yelling when I switch character.
>
>I was under the impression that the "Report Spam" feature blocked all
>*their* characters from being seen on all *my* characters for the rest of
>the day, though I never checked. So you're saying it's all *their*
>characters on your *current* character? Or is this a problem because you
>have two accounts and obviously it does not include ally our *accounts*?
It's your current character only - if I'm doing auctions on my priest,
then relog to my paladin (same account) that's also standing in
Orgrimmar, I can see the spammer I reported 2 mins ago. Would be nice
if it meant all your characters on that account blocked it, but I
think it's because it's only a temporary ignore; any relog will clear
it.
Personally I'd prefer just making it a set amount of time ignore, say
3 hours, that works on every character on your account. Would also be
nice if the standard ignore list worked across my whole account rather
than per-character, since I'll have to remember to ignore people on
all my high-lvl characters to avoid getting stuck in pugs with them.
DarkRose
>
> Buy pets, buy mounts, buy gold. Not good, not fair for everyone. Sure,
> buy all the pets/mounts/whatever you want (no gold buying), but those
> items shouldn't count toward any achievement, and certainly not any
> quest that might apply.
>
> --
> Hypanthia, Night Elf, Shadow Priest, Enchantress/Herbalist.
> Cowpattee, Tauren, Druid, Enchantress/Herbalist.
Starting to see this as legit "gold buying" on my server. People
spamming trade selling these pets for 1k-5k gold, since you can go
purchase them in the Blizzard Store and "gift" them to anyone you
want. $10 gets you 5k gold if someone is willing... Wonder how soon
Blizz will put in "gifting limits" to stop this. Say 3-5 "gifts" per
battle.net account, so families are covered, but to stop the people
gifting them for gold...
Also an easy way to lose gold if the "gifter" doesn't come through...
Urbin
Ok, so it seems that Poland has some very strange laws :-)
How does Blizzard lock these features, though? Based on your IP address?
Or based on your address (which they have in order to make credit card
payments)? I assume the latter...
DarkRose
> "Thomas Hejl Pilgaard" <t.pilga...@adslhome.dk.dk> wrote in messagenews:002a32da$0$2382$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> > Do you feel the same way about people collecting stamps and
> > spending a lot of money on a rare stamp?
> > People collecting base ball cards and spending a lot on rare cards?
> > People who collect <insert random collectible item> and spend a lot
> > on rares?
>
> Yep, sure do. Trading cards, stamps, coins, whatever.
>
On the other hand, stamps, sports cards, comic books, coins, etc. all
have the chance of appreciating in value over time (especially coins).
So I'd say those people have a more valid reason for collecting those
things, on top of the fact that they "just like them".
Matt
> Ok, so it seems that Poland has some very strange laws :-)
Yes, though more probably it's an issue of interpretation - for
example some countries have laws prohibiting organizing competitions
where you have to buy something other than entry fee to enter (as is
the case with Arena Tournaments) or that the company organizing/
selling something must have legal presence in this country.
And it's not only Poland, from European zone only specific countries
can join RAF: Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, UK, Norway, Sweden, Greece, Ireland, Belgium, Spain,
Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Belgium. Other countries and
players with five referrals from the "Recruit A Friend" cannot join
either.
> How does Blizzard lock these features, though? Based on your IP address?
> Or based on your address (which they have in order to make credit card
> payments)? I assume the latter...
I think I entered country in account data, but don't remember at this
point.
--
Regards
Matt
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
099d68d7-2fb5-427c...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com :
> On 9 Lis, 14:20, Urbin <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Ok, so it seems that Poland has some very strange laws :-)
>
> Yes, though more probably it's an issue of interpretation - for
> example some countries have laws prohibiting organizing competitions
> where you have to buy something other than entry fee to enter (as is
> the case with Arena Tournaments) or that the company organizing/
> selling something must have legal presence in this country.
>
> And it's not only Poland, from European zone only specific countries
> can join RAF: Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the
> Netherlands, UK, Norway, Sweden, Greece, Ireland, Belgium, Spain,
> Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Belgium. Other countries and
> players with five referrals from the "Recruit A Friend" cannot join
> either.
And Denmark is not in the list. That is where I live, to answer the
question Urbin asked.
I tried to contact Blizzard about both the RAF and the Arena tournament
(I am still very sad that I wasn't able to get Murkimus...).
The information I was given, was that Blizzard was more or less
encouraging people to advertise the game, by giving them incentive to
recruit their friends.
That is indeed *interpretable* as unsolicited advertising, and even
though it probably wouldn't cause a reaction, Blizzard opted to stay
on the safe ground, and not make the feature available here (actually
it was briefly available, so something probably did happen in one of
the now excluded countries, to prompt Blizzard to remove access for
players in these countries).
As for the Arena tournament, it was supposedly due to the amount of
randomness involved, which actually makes the tournament interpretable
as gambling. Just as poker-tournaments are not allowed in my country,
due to a high amount of randomness involved in the game, this could be
interpreted as also having too much randomness (crits, procs, etc.).
Even though politicians of the relevant departments have stated that
they don't see a problem, Blizzard has decided to stay on safe ground
and simply not offer the feature.
>> How does Blizzard lock these features, though? Based on your IP
>> address? Or based on your address (which they have in order to make
>> credit card payments)? I assume the latter...
>
> I think I entered country in account data, but don't remember at this
> point.
You do indeed enter your country of residence when you create your account.
Urbin
> On 9 Lis, 14:20, Urbin <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Ok, so it seems that Poland has some very strange laws :-)
>
> Yes, though more probably it's an issue of interpretation - for
> example some countries have laws prohibiting organizing competitions
> where you have to buy something other than entry fee to enter (as is
> the case with Arena Tournaments) or that the company organizing/
> selling something must have legal presence in this country.
That is a good point. We have a law like that as well in Switzerland. If by
buying something you get a token that allows you to participate in a draw,
the company must also make available a free way of entering the draw
(usually you can call them or send a postcard or an e-mail to enter).
I hadn't thought of arena's being like that. I don't quite see how the RAF
fits in there, or what other rule would exclude it...
> And it's not only Poland, from European zone only specific countries
> can join RAF: Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the
> Netherlands, UK, Norway, Sweden, Greece, Ireland, Belgium, Spain,
> Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Belgium.
Woot? So being in Switzerland I can't join the RAF program? Or is
Switzerland just nor listed because it's not part of the EU? I'll need to
check that. Not that I had any plans to RAF, so far the second monthly fee
has always kept me from thinking about it.
> Other countries and players with five referrals from the "Recruit A
> Friend" cannot join either.
Aehm, what's this "five referrals" thing? I thought you'd just get bonus XP
when playing with a char belonging to an account that was tied to yours
through RAF.
Cheers
Urbin
--
Dun Morogh-EU (PvE)
Urbin (80), Dwarven Hunter | Surana (65), Draenei Mage
Urbin
> Matt <mateusz...@gmail.com> declared in:
> 099d68d7-2fb5-427c...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com :
> > On 9 Lis, 14:20, Urbin <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Ok, so it seems that Poland has some very strange laws :-)
> >
> > Yes, though more probably it's an issue of interpretation - for
> > example some countries have laws prohibiting organizing competitions
> > where you have to buy something other than entry fee to enter (as is
> > the case with Arena Tournaments) or that the company organizing/
> > selling something must have legal presence in this country.
> >
> > And it's not only Poland, from European zone only specific countries
> > can join RAF: Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the
> > Netherlands, UK, Norway, Sweden, Greece, Ireland, Belgium, Spain,
> > Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Belgium. Other countries and
> > players with five referrals from the "Recruit A Friend" cannot join
> > either.
>
> And Denmark is not in the list. That is where I live, to answer the
> question Urbin asked.
Thanks :-)
> I tried to contact Blizzard about both the RAF and the Arena tournament
> (I am still very sad that I wasn't able to get Murkimus...).
> The information I was given, was that Blizzard was more or less
> encouraging people to advertise the game, by giving them incentive to
> recruit their friends.
>
> That is indeed *interpretable* as unsolicited advertising
Lol, ok, I see where they are coming from but they are certainly staying on
the ridcoulously safe side of the whole thing :-)
Cheers
Urbin
--
Dun Morogh-EU (PvE)
Urbin (80), Dwarven Hunter | Surana (65), Draenei Mage
Matt
> Woot? So being in Switzerland I can't join the RAF program? Or is
> Switzerland just nor listed because it's not part of the EU? I'll need to
> check that. Not that I had any plans to RAF, so far the second monthly fee
> has always kept me from thinking about it.
On your account management page try to enter the RAF link - if
Switzerland is not eligible, you'll get an error page.
--
Regards
Matt
John Gordon
> The only solution I can see are GM's monitoring the chatchannels 24/7
> on every server. That's a pretty big added expense for Blizzard.
Actually they can do it pretty cheaply, if we all lend a hand by using
the ignore button.
Right-click the offender's name, click Ignore, done. You never have to
see their messages again.
If the same person gets ignored by, say, twenty or more people within a
minute, that can be a red flag to Blizzard to go back and investigate the
chat log, and perhaps give that person a temporary (or even permanent!)
ban.
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gor...@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
Urbin
> In <005d47a5$0$1346$c3e...@news.astraweb.com> "Thomas Hejl Pilgaard" <t.pil...@adslhome.dk.dk> writes:
>
> > The only solution I can see are GM's monitoring the chatchannels 24/7
> > on every server. That's a pretty big added expense for Blizzard.
>
> Actually they can do it pretty cheaply, if we all lend a hand by using
> the ignore button.
Use "Report Spam" instead, because that is already being forwarded to Blizz
if at least 10 people report somebody.
Urbin
Indeed, I just tried and got an error. I had always assumed as it was
offered in the menu it would be available.
Ah well, it wasn't something I had planned to do :-)
PV
>*cough* Recruit-a-friend. Use that to get a 2nd account, and you just
>bought yourself uber-fast levelling for the price of a 1 month
>subscription. Ok, doesn't work past 60, but you can level superfast
"Doesn't work past 60" is what makes it acceptable. That and making
leveling pretty fast anyway - RAF would save an alt about 50 hours
of leveling time. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>Aehm, would you mind telling us where you live, where RAF uses unsolicited
>advertising and if you are unable to make use of the RAF feature on the
>Blizzard webshop beause of where you live?
What country on earth bans unsolicited advertising anyway? It would be like
banning air. *
PV
>question Urbin asked.
If Denmark bans unsolicited advertising, I'll eat my own face.
There may well be legal reasons why Denmark doesn't allow RAF (or where
blizzard legal thinks there may be an issue), but it's not because of
unsolicited advertising.
Open a magazine. Are there ads in it? That would be illegal if unsolicited
advertising was illegal. *
PV
>> Blizzard isn't stupid. They know they will no longer be able to charge a
>> subscription fee if they sell real items. Not gonna happen.
>
>They're ALREADY selling real items. I can totally see them going to the next
>level with it if this level is successful.
There are no items for sale that aren't toys.
>> Yes, it would. Everyone would leave. *
>
>LOL, right, sure they would.
I sure would, and I think everyone in my guild would too. *
PV
>> they instantly get spam reported off the server. WoW has less spam
>> than any online game I've seen. *
>
>Yes, I find it to be a problem, because I see a lot more than you
>apparantly do. From players and gold-spammers alike. It's really
>bad.
Spam from players is not the same issue. *
PV
>I was under the impression that the "Report Spam" feature blocked all
>*their* characters from being seen on all *my* characters for the rest of
>the day, though I never checked. So you're saying it's all *their*
>characters on your *current* character? Or is this a problem because you
>have two accounts and obviously it does not include ally our *accounts*?
All their characters, for the duration of the current session only. If you
switch to an alt, the spam report list is dumped. Since most spammers have
a very short lifespan on the server anyway, it's not a huge problem, but
occasionally it is annoying.
Personally, I think ignore lists and spam lists should be account wide. But
that's a suggestion for another day. *
PV
>Starting to see this as legit "gold buying" on my server. People
>spamming trade selling these pets for 1k-5k gold, since you can go
>purchase them in the Blizzard Store and "gift" them to anyone you
>want. $10 gets you 5k gold if someone is willing... Wonder how soon
I don't see a problem with that myself, since the person buying the pet had
to have collected the gold themselves anyway - last time I checked you
would lose money if you bought gold to get a pet that way, and make-a-wish
gets the cash in any event.
>Blizz will put in "gifting limits" to stop this. Say 3-5 "gifts" per
>battle.net account, so families are covered, but to stop the people
>gifting them for gold...
>Also an easy way to lose gold if the "gifter" doesn't come through...
That last bit is certainly an issue they already have with people trading
TCG card codes. They would be best to treat it just like those - if you
made arrangements involving real money outside the game and you get ripped
off, too damn bad for you. It makes abuses less attractive if nobody
expects them to work. *
PV
>If the same person gets ignored by, say, twenty or more people within a
>minute, that can be a red flag to Blizzard to go back and investigate the
>chat log, and perhaps give that person a temporary (or even permanent!)
>ban.
That's exactly the way it works. Everything a character says in chat is
logged at all times. *
John Gordon
> Open a magazine. Are there ads in it? That would be illegal if unsolicited
> advertising was illegal. *
But you chose to pick up the magazine and read it, and therefore you chose
to see the ads inside as well.
From my highly imperfect understanding of the situation, it sounds like
Denmark is banning advertising which is thrust upon you without your
consent, for example telephone calls or emails.
PV
>But you chose to pick up the magazine and read it, and therefore you chose
>to see the ads inside as well.
>
>From my highly imperfect understanding of the situation, it sounds like
>Denmark is banning advertising which is thrust upon you without your
>consent, for example telephone calls or emails.
That's not the same thing as unsolicited advertising in general - it's two
forms of advertising where the viewer pays the bill. And that definitely is
outlawed in a lot of places. I can't see the connection to RAF though -
clearly they don't have to use spam to advertise it (and don't where it
*isn't* illegal). Gotta be something else. *