Because they think it slows the bots down?
I have no idea why you keep inventing reasons when they give you their reason… in the same blue post you keep quoting.
Try reading all of it.
Bots are fly hacking which is an exploit. Perhaps it is about bots too?
1 Like
What do you expect them to say? You’re asking them to make stuff up out of thin air? This is classic. They told us what they’re going to do with it. They’ve communicated on everything that’s happening in the game. What more could they possibly tell us?
They could tell us why they don’t use anticheat detection software to reset flyhackers before they touch anything in a raid. It’s commonly used on private servers.
Also autodetection for bots can be used without a general restriction on all players to force botters into the open world so they are more often right click reported, which, is a hamhanded solution.
Considering the blow up threads being angry at Boosters, and Boosters expressing their discontent over this change, just maybe (keyword) it was, also, directed at them, too. Not saying Boosting is “exploitative”, but it’s possible (keyword) that Boosting may (another keyword) not have been intended Gameplay and maybe just maybe it’s to combat that, as well.
I’m not “making-up” anything. I’m discussing possible (keyword) scenarios as to what “exploitative” means.
They just said “exploitative” and “automated” Gameplay. The rest is them discussing how this new Cap works.
I did, and they only said “exploitative” and “automated”. The rest is how this change, works.
Yes, IK. I’m just saying, it’s not -just- about the Bots. You can still Fly Hack, without being a Bot. Which is still Exploiting.
Sure, that’s one opinion.
It’s all an opinion. That’s what these Forums are designed for to discuss our opinions.
Instead of doing live strat 30 times… do live strat + ud strat 30 times… like doin 60 instances
And like I said earlier, I have no problem with that.
You’re calling opinions opinions instead of evidence.
See? Already getting better at this.
You just assumed I was passing off my opinions as “fact” instead of discussing/actually reading what I was saying.
As I already expressed, earlier, everything I grabbed was evidence to how I came to my conclusion. Yet, no one is willing to further to discuss on these matters, to come to a stronger conclusion. Instead, they’d rather fight with me because they assumed something else, instead of actually reading what I’m actually saying.
I haven’t changed my stance, at all. It’s still the same. You’re just assuming what I’m actually saying.
Found the troll… nice bait.
Yes, I agree the content of your argument is the same. Probably why I haven’t been convinced, to be honest. You tend to repeat yourself a lot in lieu of convincing others.
But your form is better. It’s less smug. Less condescending.
It’s more about how you present your case rather than the contents of the case.
So because my stance is consistent, you’re not convinced by my conclusion? LOL I mean, I’m happy to discuss further on the matter. You tend to just disagree and leave the conversation. Meanwhile, I spit fact (as in what’s been said, and what’s been happening) after fact, as to why my conclusion was reached.
Mostly because they tend to repeat themselves, so I end up, repeating myself.
I haven’t changed my form, at all. The way you think I make you feel, has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.
Which has no relevance to what we’re talking about. How I make you (not you specifically, a general you) or anyone else feel, is irrelevant to what we’re talking about. If you feel minimal because I said something that supersedes your’s, perhaps your argument isn’t as strong as you think it is.
It’s not -just- about the Bots. And, perhaps, we (a general we, not meaning anyone specific) have been using “exploitative” ways, and Blizz seems (keyword) wants to change that. That’s it.
I mean, if you don’t think how you present your case matters, this is exactly why you are bad at this.
You’re very good at responding until someone gives up and leaves. Repeating the same points without convincing anyone. Hell, I’d even say irritating people until they break a forum rule and get a timeout.
You’re lousy at convincing people.
It really shouldn’t matter how I make you feel. If you feel slighted by me, that’s not my problem.
I’m just having a conversation. If people leave the conversation, that indicates, to me, that they have nothing more to add to the conversation.
Again, others repeat themselves, equally as much. Yet, it’s “wrong”, when I do it 
Why do you assume my purpose is to irritate people? I really don’t understand why you assume this. Perhaps, you don’t have any idea who I am, as a person. You make a lot of assumptions, without backing them up.
Meanwhile, I can back up, my conclusions.
Thank you. But, seeing as how you totally derailed the initial point of the conversation onto focusing on me, I’d say you’re equally so simply because you totally and completely derailed the original topic, at hand.
Which suggest to me, that my conclusion still remains true because nobody else seems to argue against it without bringing all the attention, on me.
You can back up your conclusions?
My dear charmed one, we are having this conversation because you have proven you cannot.
Yes.
I did. You even said “sure” to it:
Then, you went on this long tanjit talking about how you don’t like my tactics, as if that somehow proves my conclusion weak. Hint: It doesn’t.
So, enough about me. I will repeat myself, to go back to the conversation, what’s with the Cap? Why have the Cap?
I said sure, that’s your opinion.
Because that’s all it is. You have no evidence.
See the problem?
By the way, I’ve already answered why I think they have the cap. It’s amazing how you can quote an entire post while failing to read it.
And you said it was better, when I said this:
Because it is.
I do see people (not all) want to argue over semantics. It’s not far fetched in using the evidence (as in the words that have been said, threads made, etc.) to come to forming my opinion, on the situation. You keep assuming and wanting to create this narrative that everything I’m saying is to be taken as a fact. Hint: it’s not. We’re just having a conversation. It does seem (keyword) to lead into such a case. See, you’re the one repeating yourself, here.
You said to just counter the bots from spamming it, and this was my response to that:
That’s when you said “sure”, and I was like “we’re just discussing opinions here”, then you went back to fight with me about it.
The bottom line regarding the 30 cap change that makes me believe that blizzard is either unaware of how this impacts legitamite players, or does not care about how this impacts legitamite players, is how vague they are being with the term exploitative here.
I have played blizzard games for 15 plus years now. I have been active on the forums for most of those games over the years. The only time they are ever this vague about what the problem they are addressing is when they do not have an actual fix for the exploit, and do not want people to look up how to do it.
That’s consistent to what I know about the flyhacking exploit.
Blizzard is and has generally been quite open about why they make other design changes. We saw rationale clearly stating what the change was intended to target, and why they think it would help with every other big change to classic, layering, black lotus, you name it.
If they wanted to say instancing above 30 was an exploit they would say it. There would be no ambiguity.
There, that’s my opinion.