just for the sake of clarity:
the vast majority of posts in this thread are people saying it’s fine, and posting links to rules & blue posts.
pretending that there are 3000 posts stating that it’s suddenly a terrible thing after 20 years, is straight up misrepresentation of the content of the thread.
I said there was a 3k post thread not that there was a 3k post thread against it. It’s a debate over the statements made in the CS forums that seem to contradict statements made by the developers so I’m asking to clarify.
I figured.
I guess their post made you feel “delusional” huh:
Best of luck with your feedback in the appropriate forum!
Proof that they do read feedback does indeed make me feel comfortable! Thankfully, I’ve been around long enough to see just how often they do listen when posts are in the right forum 
Have a great night Arrow!
By providing accurate information. Agreed! But yes, this will likely be locked or deleted since the information to answer the OP is so readily available and has not changed.
I already quit BGs, just couldn’t get a fair game. I wish I could play BGs. That’s not important, I’m just hoping for clarification of the CS agent’s post so we can stop bickering in the threads one way or the other. 3k is a lot of arguing and there are a number of active threads.
BGB has a built in bias against solo queue healers, not sure of the magnitude but going into it at a disadvantage caused concern. I did try it, rated brings with it a different culture than randoms.
Well then, quitting it is.
Yeah, I thought I might try a dps but I decided instead maybe pvp isn’t for me any longer. I was going to make Elric into a dungeon healer for my time left, see if I find it enjoyable.
I mean, isn’t that what Elricreincar is looking for? Company-approved clarification?
Either you believe the information or you don’t. If you don’t believe it, you’re just asking for more information that you can pick and choose from. If you do believe it, then maybe you’ll understand that the developers change their minds, just don’t have a strong standpoint on some matters, or have some other reason to not have people draw up additional technicalities.
There’s not a lot in life that goes on without nuance. There’s a reason why I stated a lot earlier in the thread that this was an extremely loaded question that’s going to see neither aye nor nay.
If the clarification is that it’s intended then I won’t feel like I’m exploiting if I chose to join one of the communities, that’s why I chose the wording as it seems to be the key points in any authoritative discussion of exploiting video games. I had an offer to run with one of the better ones, not that I would; I don’t want advantage I just want a somewhat fair fight but at least I wouldn’t bother with the threads any longer. They could shut me up, might be worth a paragraph from a developer explaining their expectations for that alone.
It’s a big enough topic that what you’re really asking for is for several designers to sit down, study the various approaches, have meetings, spec out solutions, have someone write out a guideline, then have someone translate it into something appropriate for the public a la Office Space (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcIMIyQnOso).
It’s not a small topic. It’s a big topic, with lots of nooks and crannies. I get it – it’d be really nice to have clarification. That’s why it needs a lot of hashing out.
Just to set some clear expectations, developers do not post on the forums ever. The blues here are Support Forum Agents, not developers.
Yeah, we’re trying to provide feedback but it’s just a lot of bickering in those threads and we never seem to reach a conclusion acceptable to both sides.
They were the ones that made the post that people are confused about. If it weren’t for the initial post I linked it’d be a lot clearer, that one seems to define it as exploiting/cheating.
Syncronizing queuing is not against the In-Game Code of Conduct. This has been answered several times, even the answer was given to people in those threads. If you wish to submit feedback about this, I would suggest using the already made large thread in General Discussion or within the Battleground forums.
SFA’s knows the same thing we all know. And considering that this policy has not changed, this is how come they know it is not considered as cheating or exploiting. The development are the ones who will decide if the policy needs to be changed, and when we know the policy is when the SFA’s would also know the policy.
if it’s the link i’m thinking of, it doesn’t say what people are pretending it says.
when you read it in context, it states that the issue was automation… NOT 1, 2, 3, queue.
A dev did comment on this a long LONG time ago about things being fair in PvP in general. I believe the title was “Let Blood be spilled” or something like that. I cannot find it as of now (my Google-fu is lacking), and I think it was on the old forums.
The basic gist is Player vs Player isn’t or never was fair.
In point of fact, Daxxari isn’t (wasn’t) a developer, but a community manager.
Or you could look at the link where it directly states an organized group against pugs is unfair and seems to say it’s unintended as justification, basically the definition of exploit which is why I’m asking. Also it’s a 5 man team restriction but it’s OK to go beyond the queue system to make teams greater than that? I think we need some clarification.
Don’t they just basically post what the developers give them in these announcements?
instead of trying to extrapolate what it “seems” to say, just take it at face value.
the exploit, was using automation.
you’ve had clarification via blue posts.
you’ve had more clarification via players attempting explain the blue posts.
it’s pretty clear.
…it’s just not what you want to hear.