I mean, you’re making a lot of assumptions instead of just reading what I wrote.
I specifically would go stealth in the south tower at the start to flip it back to Horde so the alliance would be stalled another ~1-2 minutes. This is the only way you can win in the race meta. It’s not my problem if you don’t understand the meta.
It’s either that or I run north with the zerg and afk up there doing actually nothing.
You said you cyclone tanks. The part you mentioned about the towers is something you ‘sometimes’ do. It sounds like more often than not you’re AFK in the throne room waiting to cyclone a tank.
If you weren’t AFK you would not have been booted for being AFK.
I’ve played a lot of BGs myself with a rogue. I’ve even played a lot of defense as a hunter. I’ve never been warned nor banned for being afk.
over the course of 3 days of playing I received 1 deserter buff b/c I had to use the bathroom and I didn’t think it would take that long. You have no idea what youre talking about.
There are no holes, alliance reach horde towers within 1 minute of the gates opening. If you don’t immediately stealth on a tower as Horde, you will never get back into the Horde base/towers due to human racial/aoe spam.
This is what defending literally requires you to do. I’m sorry you have no understanding of how this works. You’re literally just saying things.
This is 100% False. Going directly to a tower and sitting in it, and actively defending it is not “AFK’ing” and isn’t grounds for a Ban. That is an objective of the game. The fact the people report for this or think it is the appropriate way to play is mind boggling. Securing towers is necessary, especially as alliance when Horde is sending 10 people back almost every game! Just complete nonsense.
Same thing the other way. If you die in the Horde towers after passing mid as alliance, there is no getting back south. You are literally stuck at a choke point that horde will not let you pass. Horde has several ways back North and a wide path, where Alliance has a massive choke that is impossible to get past.
Im 100% with you but this is, if i’m allowed to quote an CS that answered me:
“… only defending is not quite in the spirit of PvP…”
So it’s against TOS, funny no?
I reviewed another post about this same topic where Blizzard staff explain that they look at logs regarding alleged AFK or inactive AV players. If the logs support seeing a player is inactive in several battlegrounds, they are hit with a suspension though not usually 30 days on the first one.
Reading the comments to the Blizzard staff everyone who is getting banned all seem to have an affinity for playing defense. Some players even claim they don’t encounter a single enemy for the entire match. Unless they’re guarding the harpy den, that’s probably not true.
I struggle to believe this is factual. They have logs which they indicate they check. If they have log after log showing 0 actions what other conclusion are they supposed to draw? I really find it hard to believe that people are being banned at a whim without tangible proof. More so, that a ticket is being opened, someone reviews it, and maintains a ban if there is not sufficient proof.
go ask any classic player why they didn’t want to defend farm or stables in AB. I dare you. It won’t be because they saw tons of action and did lots of damage. Defending, by nature, means you won’t be doing anything most of the time. But it’s a necessary function of the game. It’s also a job most people simply refuse to do for the aforementioned reasons.
As a hunter, defending ST is sometimes what you got to do. Even then, I would not go an entire game without doing 0 damage to enemy players. I also communicate in the BG chat. Call out INCs etc. Someone always tries it. It is obvious when a defender is active or inactive.
In your case, you specifically said you sit in the throne room and cast Cyclone on tanks. I feel extremely confident what was likely seen in your logs was that you’re afk for 8 out of a 10 minute game. As I said, you cast 1 cyclone spell, die, then the game ends.
AB is entirely different from AV. I just used that as an example. It’s completely possible for you to go to stonehearth bunker multiple games in a row, see 0 dmg/healing, and the game ends before you can go north after it caps. AV is pve pvp, there’s no requirement to take action against any actual player to win an AV.
I dislike AFKers in BGs. I am glad Blizzard watches this as it used to be an epidemic. I mean, it was /super/ bad. I have a seething hatred for habitual PVP Afkers. They were so bold as to claim before the game began they’d be AFK because they were just there to AFK lose and soak up tower cap honor.
I am sorry you have a 30 day ban. I think denying you the launch day of WOTLK is really tough. Maybe two weeks would have been more reasonable. But that’s Blizzard’s choice. I hope you can appeal and I hope if you get back in game you find another way to play that is more constructive to the game.
When I take towers as a rogue I usually kill the archers. Now i’ve done damage. Even if I begin at Ice Blood Tower I can usually make it to Drek before the game ends and do damage there too.
Whatever the case is, Blizzard decided you were inactive. Hopefully others can avoid making your same mistake as they seem particularly motivated to maintain these suspensions.
It’s crazy how no one hit by this ban wave was actually “afking”
but if you have no damage or healing in av then wtf? You get damage stats even for attacking the NPC’s
From an outside perspective, it looks really suspicious that a lot of us pvp’d endlessly and didn’t catch a ban, while a ban wave goes out and 100% of the posts are people pleading not guilty.
Either you guys were afking, spamming share quests, or something, or there really is an issue with the system Blizzard used to ban people this time around.
If it’s “not in the spirit of pvp” Then remove it as an objective. Take away the honor reward, don’t make it a requirement to burn a tower to remove a warmaster. Take a look at yourself then Blizzard before suspending players who are actually doing objectives.