dsquidvicious
Authorized
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2014
Why? Because it is a terrible impression for new players to see a bunch of "bots" running around in the questing zones.
Information Warlock Summoning
- Thread starter Chero
- Start date
- Status
Why? Because it is a terrible impression for new players to see a bunch of "bots" running around in the questing zones.
You keep on advocation for stricter policys against this, suggesting rules that differ a lot from what the Kronos devs have said they want to achieve.
"Collaboration and dialogue" will never kill off the private warlock networks, which is what the admins seem to want to do, you seem to want to achieve something completely different.
The problem does not originate on, is not limited to, and can not be solved by guild-wide adjustments to rules or functions. All a person with a a ton of summoners has to do is not join the guild on them, and they will be undetectable by your system.
Warlock alts are used for two reasons, quickly getting to world bosses, and simplifying traveling around the world. The admins want to
Your system does nothing to stop this, but instead harms the other aspect, which they want to preserve. An(other) admin post to confirm this would'nt hurt though, since it's still a bit unclear who this is actually aimed at, and who other changes might be aimed towards in the future.
As stated many times, the're not bots. The imps are working as intended with their fireballs on aggressive.
Don't like them? Make AFK leveling an offense, but don't ban the summon locks who leveled legitimately.
dsquidvicious
Authorized
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2014
Ok, yea this is more of what i am getting at. Nothing wrong with leveling legitimately of course and then using a legitimately leveled character to summon yourself and friends.
However, like you suggested, AFKing leveling the locks like this is something that i don't think should be allowed.
I find it pretty funny that people here are angry and even lying to get there view through.
First off, yes people did have sometimes 1 or maybe 2 accounts more in vanilla, but no were near the extent there is here today. People weren’t prepared to pay a lot of money just to get summoned around the world. And this goes even for the big guild. Sitting here stating people hade a lot of accounts for locksummon is a bloody lie.
Second of all what are they exploiting. Traveling and that is not a minor thing. Flightpath is one thing, but a bigger part is walking/riding. And that is important, one of the biggest shit-things blizz implemented in TBC were flying.
Walking/riding makes you interact more with the world and you can get ganked. I realy fun part of the wow experience and I for one would love guild to start doing what we did in vanilla and fuck up raidingguilds when they were preparing for a raid traveling there and waiting outside dungeons.
If people will leave because of this be my guest.
- - - Updated - - -
All horde should start put Vanguard members no mather lvl on kill on sight list and just destroy them all day long.
First off, yes people did have sometimes 1 or maybe 2 accounts more in vanilla, but no were near the extent there is here today. People weren’t prepared to pay a lot of money just to get summoned around the world. And this goes even for the big guild. Sitting here stating people hade a lot of accounts for locksummon is a bloody lie.
Second of all what are they exploiting. Traveling and that is not a minor thing. Flightpath is one thing, but a bigger part is walking/riding. And that is important, one of the biggest shit-things blizz implemented in TBC were flying.
Walking/riding makes you interact more with the world and you can get ganked. I realy fun part of the wow experience and I for one would love guild to start doing what we did in vanilla and fuck up raidingguilds when they were preparing for a raid traveling there and waiting outside dungeons.
If people will leave because of this be my guest.
- - - Updated - - -
All horde should start put Vanguard members no mather lvl on kill on sight list and just destroy them all day long.
Rockmaster
Authorized
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2014
After reading all those comments i realized something. This must be the most blizzlike change ever! It is not the change itself. It is the reaction. It really reminds me of the blizzard forums after certain patches. Some people cheerand some people cry. It the devs desition no matter if you like it or not. Creating a shitstorm hardly ever changed something, so try to argue with the devs (if you want the change returned) and not against each other.
I think most of the people here "arguing against each othere" would really appreciate an official statement regarding some of the questions asked in this thread. The GMs are probably waiting for the dust to settle and then we will hear from them, I hope.
Alright, so that's in fact a bit confusing. What you (Hagson) have quoted suggests the staff is ok with using summoning locks for endgame purposes, whereas the first post of this very update, and the measure itself that was taken, specifically limit the summoning of high level characters implementing a higher level requirement for locks to be able to summon them. I thought that was indeed what was being frowned upon, using locks to get to world bosses faster, because that all revolves around abusing free accounts to get an advantage over a "common resource" (as world bosses are) where the only way for others to compete is abusing the same way themselves.
I personally believe making such distinctions of little practicality: to me, there's no difference between a leveling player using locks to bypass flying paths (thus leveling faster than players who travel normally) and whole guilds turning to the same mechanic (thus getting to world bosses faster than guilds who travel normally). As a matter of fact, an advantage is being gained that cannot be compensated if not by resorting to the same method, regardless of the "outperformed" subject being single players or whole guilds.
Of course, the solution I suggested can effectively counter a wide, organized usage/abuse of said mechanic by the hand of guilds (assumed the staff wants to prevent it on a guild wide scale at all, which doesn't even seem so at this point), while it's clearly of no utility for isolated players going around on their own. For those, the newly introduced limitation is probably a good countermeasure, yet how do we go about legit players unfairly hindered by it? Players who are getting camped, for example, and want to be able to summon a much higher player than what's permitted with the current limit, if they have a chance, or want a dungeon boost. That can be done through exceptions, if technically feasible: as in, locks nearby any dungeon entrance could have the limitation automatically lifted (a "filter" which is triggered when entering a given subzone maybe, getting disabled again when the locks leaves it).
I personally believe making such distinctions of little practicality: to me, there's no difference between a leveling player using locks to bypass flying paths (thus leveling faster than players who travel normally) and whole guilds turning to the same mechanic (thus getting to world bosses faster than guilds who travel normally). As a matter of fact, an advantage is being gained that cannot be compensated if not by resorting to the same method, regardless of the "outperformed" subject being single players or whole guilds.
Of course, the solution I suggested can effectively counter a wide, organized usage/abuse of said mechanic by the hand of guilds (assumed the staff wants to prevent it on a guild wide scale at all, which doesn't even seem so at this point), while it's clearly of no utility for isolated players going around on their own. For those, the newly introduced limitation is probably a good countermeasure, yet how do we go about legit players unfairly hindered by it? Players who are getting camped, for example, and want to be able to summon a much higher player than what's permitted with the current limit, if they have a chance, or want a dungeon boost. That can be done through exceptions, if technically feasible: as in, locks nearby any dungeon entrance could have the limitation automatically lifted (a "filter" which is triggered when entering a given subzone maybe, getting disabled again when the locks leaves it).
Muneca
Authorized
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2015
This would solve not much, as each 'network' warlock would just be parked next to a dungeon entrance. Most are there already anyway ( Dire Maul buff, BRM, Ony, AQ when released etc)
It saddens me too. I actually read the whole thread, and I do understand your point of view and share your wish for the community to be better. The problem is that the aim of the staff, which is to have this situation under control and as similar to blizz back then as possible, v/s the behavior of people who think that "I do it because I can", do not get along. People who want to abuse things to get advantage will always exist, and always find a way to do it, unless you completely take away that chance, which this is the case.
It's bad for some people, but is the best decision for everyone. As i stated before, IMHO i would even restrict clickers level to summon someone, with the purpose of regulating this in a more effective way.
Last edited:
I second that part as well, yeah.
And if anything, it proves they're willing to have the best approach to issues that's ever possible, a dynamic, adaptive one. Maybe who knows, now they could look into that other little crossfaction thingy...... :tongue:
Losse
Authorized
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2015
The current implementation is even counter-productive to the aim of Kronos, assuming their aim is to reduce warlock numbers.
Currently all level 20 locks can still fill in a role. As previously pointed out, the only thing you need extra is a 30 and a 45 lock (preferably shared amongst guild members). This basically means all level 20 locks can stay and you get 2 extra locks. Sure, it might take a bit more time to get the summon cascade going and to restock on shards, but will it really reduce the number of active summoning locks?
As for AFK leveling, it apparently should not be possible to gain experience from a mob when a pet kills it 100%. Ironically, only 2 people voted for a fix on the bugtracker so far.
Currently all level 20 locks can still fill in a role. As previously pointed out, the only thing you need extra is a 30 and a 45 lock (preferably shared amongst guild members). This basically means all level 20 locks can stay and you get 2 extra locks. Sure, it might take a bit more time to get the summon cascade going and to restock on shards, but will it really reduce the number of active summoning locks?
As for AFK leveling, it apparently should not be possible to gain experience from a mob when a pet kills it 100%. Ironically, only 2 people voted for a fix on the bugtracker so far.
Hordekillerx
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2015
- Location
- In a house
I really don't see the problem. The warleck is liek the 2nd fastest class to lvl. /cryandquitnoobs
Peasemold
Authorized
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
Having never played a pet class thoroughly or tried to level by AFK I wasn't aware that experience shouldn't be given. Makes sense in hindsight now.
I'm sure the hardcore vanilla veterans would know you aren't supposed to get experience, is this not breaking this rule?
– The player is obliged to report any bug in the game. Failing to do so or abusing the bug will be punished based on the decision of a competent person.
I'm sure the hardcore vanilla veterans would know you aren't supposed to get experience, is this not breaking this rule?
– The player is obliged to report any bug in the game. Failing to do so or abusing the bug will be punished based on the decision of a competent person.
And that is exactly why I propose this:
Much left to do, yes, but from my side I'm very happy with the work of the staff. They show that they really care about the community, and that's what keeps me playing on this server. That motivates me to report and help with what I can in my not so big free time :smile: maybe not as much as you with your impressive and dedicated work on the census, but I do what I can :laugh:
That's true, the lock must deal damage to the target in order to get any XP from the kill. Didn't have a clue such a major bug was present here, and left unchecked.
Can you link me the bugtracker issue please? I sorted all reports with 2 votes on them and couldn't seem to find it.
ohgr
Authorized
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2014
Although that's hunter, but I assume that's the one he meant and I assume it works the same for locks.
https://vanilla-twinhead.twinstar.cz/?issue=3068
Abyxsal
Authorized
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2015
- Location
- Hollywood CA USA
Ahahahah I giggled IRL.
I'm rather new to the topic and prob my opinion doesn't matter, but I think people should use mage portals and flight paths as intended by design.
I would prob go a step further and make warlocks only capable of summong characters the same level or lower. So only 60s can summon 60s.
I mean, how hard is it to get a guild warlock and 2 people out to a location to summon the rest of the raid? :what:
- Status