You dont pay his sub so don’t tell him how to play. In that case once you hit 60 why bother staying subbed so you can run easy raids once a week?
1 Like
Well blizzard clearly established in vanilla that one of the metrics they use to determine bot like behavior is spamming dungeon resets.
1 Like
Got a source for that conjecture? The only thing they use to determine if someone is a bot is by investigating their gameplay to determine if the inputs are generated from a program (i.e. consistent pathing, regular intervals, etc…). They have to manually look at each case because banning a real person is an awful thing to do. It would also require more customer support resources to handle those situations. Though it does seem they use some algorithms to identify RMT using /played time and mail/trade transactions.
1 Like
Spamming dungeons is bot-like behaviour? Hahaha well in that case, logging into the game is also bot-like behaviour because bots log into the game just like we do. Taking flight paths? Bot-like behaviour. Casting blizzard? Bot-like behaviour.
…some people smh 
10 Likes
What conjecture, are you trying to deny blizzard put a limit on instances in vanilla?
1 Like
I honestly do not care about the how or the why, but rather that it is having a significantly damaging affect on classic.
I don’t see you complaining all that much about the drop rate change on that. Doesn’t that too ruin your classic experience?
1 Like
How is it damaging the game? What? People enjoy min/maxing…or they wouldn’t be doing it.
No? It’s a goal I’ve commit to doing, knowing full well the drop rate. This limit preventing me from farming said item is what is ruining my experience. I was hoping to get lucky and get it within 500 runs but i’m up to 1025ish. It’s possible that phase 5 will increase the drop rate, which would be a welcomed change. Still doesn’t mean I’m gonna stop trying to get it. Also note that dungeon loot changes were planned from the start and following the release of AQ…so completely expected.
4 Likes
It’s not preventing you from farming it.
1 Like
Blizzard: “Don’t you guys have phones 2 accounts? You guys have phones 2 accounts right?”
5 Likes
when will this harmful change be undone?
5 Likes
Hey look bliz took it easier on boosters/gold farmers by laxing the restrictions on the instance cap. That means we had a legitimate issue and they listened and responded. But have they listened to cry babies like you? Boosters banned? Not able to pst in chat or lfg? Nope. Because you are a pathetic entitled child. Have a good one, try not to go cross eyed trying to read lfg chat lol. Simp
3 Likes
Can we get this cap removed already…
4 Likes
Sure. As soon as you can convince every botter in the world to stop it already.
1 Like
You mean as soon as you can convince Blizzard to invest in active moderation against botting rather than limiting how much legitimate players can play the game because they’re pinching pennies.
6 Likes
It’s not an either-or thing. They are engaging in active moderation as well as limiting botter profits.
This is consistent with how everyone else protects their property. Banks still maintain alarms, even though those do nothing to prevent identity theft. In addition to doing that, they require multi-factor authentication for online access to banking information. They’re not going to abandon one security measure in favor of another.
1 Like
That’s a big LOL.
Automated systems that take weeks or months to ban botters and have been proven to ban legitimate players in the process don’t really count as “active moderation.” To me that’s more “dumpster fire moderation.”
You wanna know what most large banks also have? Guards on-duty during all business hours and even some after-hours. The Blizzard version of this would be in-game GM’s, which were once a thing and were very popular & effective, but Blizzard is sacrificing security to save money.
3 Likes
We don’t really have automated actions involved here outside of when we develop specific detections for botting programs that we’ve found. Part of what our hacks team does is work on either breaking the bot, preventing the bot from accessing the game or detecting the bot if the other two options aren’t feasible.
Source:
2 Likes
Oh, what was I thinking?!? Of course a random forum poster knows way more about Blizzard’s bot banning processes than Blizzard itself:
As they stated on July 1st:
Your claim that they aren’t engaging in active moderation is clearly at odds with Blizzard’s own reports.
As you just admitted, Blizzard has that equivalent with their in-game GM system, which is alive and well. Yes, banks have guards. Do they have two guards posted at every single teller? No. Are the guards expected to curb identity theft? No. Again, I don’t see the point you were even trying to make with this. The existence of one security measure to address one problem does not prevent them from employing other security measures to address other problems. Regardless of whether they have 2 guards per bank or 20 guards per bank, the alarms are staying on, the amount of money in the vault at any given time is going to be limited, and serial numbers on bills are going to be tracked.
In other words, the number of GMs has nothing to do with this decision, which was made for the purposes of limiting the botters’ profitability before they can be reported and banned.
2 Likes
oof this thread almost died.
3 Likes
I’m still waiting for this change to be reverted.
2 Likes