Could we get a ruling on whether this is an exploit for pvp?

You get I agree with you on the fact that this is a problem right?

So weird.

2 Likes

Never said you didn’t. What I don’t understand is how you are questioning it at all. I could understand if it was a minor problem, but it’s not, it’s a huge problem that is affect every part of unrated pvp even blitz.

How about a more recent post that says the same thing:

And the other means is most likely referring to when blizzard broke the ability for an addon to manipulate the queue in patch 5.1 back in 2012

oh so blizzard has stopped it before… and now just because they haven’t it’s ok? wild…
Also another customer support… those guys don’t even play they game… or even know the TOS for that matter.

Because people are fighting against it and blue posts are contradictory. I don’t get how you can pick and choose which blue posts are actually representative of Blizzard’s stance. That’s still wild to me.

What they stopped back then was an addon that basically allowed a full raid to guarantee they’d be put in the same match by manipulating the queue.

What they are fine with, is people pressing queue up at the same time and hoping.

I would hope you’re capable of seeing how those are different.

There is not a single blue post that says sync queueing all random bg’s is ok…

What about the one I posted from customer support? The blue post in an old customer support thread? How is that not from Blizzard?

one says countdown are fine but that doesn’t agree with TOS so clearly, he doesn’t even know the TOS. The other is about AV when raids could join together.

Part of Vrak’s job is to enforce the ToS. It’s safe to say: he’s got a lot more authority to say what is and isn’t a violation than you do. He’s still active, and (in fact), this thread was started in CS to ask him to respond.

The response appears to have been to move it to the BGs subforum.

Yet it’s not being enforced… No, he doesn’t get to say what is or isn’t a violation. A judge doesn’t get to choose the laws a judge enforces them. If he is not enforcing the TOS he needs to be removed and someone that will enforce them needs to take his place.

Literally my entire point on why we need clarification. Blue post contradicting COC and TOS as well as other blue posts saying more than 5 in a bg queued together is unfair.

Ok I am done for a while. Such a merry go round.

We don’t… the TOS is EXTREMELY clear.

I can post the TOS and the definition of exploiting again if you would like.

alone and solo like you?

Wow… good to see this thread broke through the 100 posts barrier! :confetti_ball:

I see and that sounds interesting! If it could match a premade to fight another premade, that is a success I think? I am also a little relieved to know Blizz hasn’t forgotten pvp. Do you know if they will bring the same system to Retail?

I think you are right, let’s see how this develops. Personally, I prefer to see Blizz provide a new way to empower the Pugs so they could stand up to the Premade. I know this sounds naive but I remain hopeful ~ :partying_face:

I agree completely, and thank you for creating this thread :slight_smile:

Hmm… my preferred definition of premade would be - an organised (full or partial) team consisting of players who aimed to be in the same game, and have sufficient power, teamwork and coordination to influence the battle in their favour, then it’s premade, regardless it is sync queuing of solo queuers, or multiple 5-person groups, or with any new methods. Maybe?

Indeed, this is part of the core problem.

Unfortunately, no matter what you, me or any players believe in, is still open for debate because each of us could interpret the same thing differently for our convenience. This happens in court every day. Blizz is the creator of the TOS and Rules, and the only authority in this game. They are naturally the Judge, and the only entity that has the power to enforce their Rules.

While this thread calls only for clarification, it also naturally implies that Blizz must clarify, and then back it up with enforcement.

3 Likes

Blizzard made a long post explaining why they broke that premade raid-forming addon and addons like it. Blizzard doesn’t want premade raids in random bgs because they’re unfair and they drive players away from PvP.

I don’t know what mental gymnastics people go through to convince themselves that Blizzard only doesn’t like premade raids formed by addons and not premade raids formed manually, as if the premade raids formed manually aren’t doing the same damage to the PvP community.

Someone even directly asked Holinka on Twitter:

And Holinka replied:
https://twitter.com/holinka/status/312067433181618176

(FYI, Holinka deleted all of his old tweets.)

^ Even that response from the dev in charge of PvP wasn’t clear enough for premade raiders.

They just ignored Holinka and kept premade raiding.

1 Like

The unfortunate thing for you, is that ‘queue at the same time and hope’ is not viewed as ‘deliberately circumventing the in-game constraints’, as has been pointed out multiple times.

It’s unfortunate for all the PvPers who want to play in a fair game.

And if “hope” doesn’t work, then they drop queue pops and requeue until “hope” works.

Does anyone actually think premade raiding isn’t “deliberately circumventing the in-game constraints”?

At least some premade raiders can admit what they’re doing isn’t fair to pugs. Others might be in denial because it would taint the legitimacy of their easy wins and their win rate records.

Only if it can be shown to involve something that’s not part of the default game experience. Voice chat and the decline queue button are part of the default game experience, both intentionally put there by the developers in order for players to use them.

Premade raiders seem to forget the developers intentionally don’t allow players to queue for random bgs in a raid group.

Seems like they’re deliberately circumventing the in-game constraints to get their premade raids into random bgs.



https://twitter.com/holinka/status/312067433181618176

(FYI, Holinka deleted all of his old tweets.)