minus the bugs, exploits and the like. dont cherry pick.
Care to explain how spell batching is a bug or exploit? This should be good.
2 Likes
it seems your definition of an unfair advantage is different from what it actually is. unlike the others in this thread that have admitted why they want this recreated, you keep beating around the bush. so how about you explain why this should be an exception. aside from things like sharding.
So you can’t tell us how spell batching is an exploit or a bug? Interesting.
5 Likes
Nope, and every time you ask, she avoids answering it.
2 Likes
and you cant tell me how it isnt. interesting.
as a matter of fact, i already did. as well as the impact it will have on classes as a whole but nope- lets pretend that never happened.
An intentional design decision based on a hardware limitation. Nope, doesn’t sound like a bug to me.
1 Like
Can you point that out to me, because I don’t remember it actually happening.
aside from things like the debuff limit, which was due to limitation- that only got INCREASED. not fixed and patched out completely. like spell batching.
but okay.
i mean, twist the difference between intentional and not intentional, all you want to. im sure that you can convince blizzard and yourself, that this is 100% NOT to have an unfair advantage. like you admitted earlier.
I mean, yeah technically it never got removed completely, but when was the last time you managed to get 255 debuffs on anything?
okay lol.
you do know what uncapped means, right?
You can’t unintentionally design something to work a certain way based on a hardware limitation. It doesn’t work that way. If you ran into a hardware limitation, you’re not going to throw your hands in the air and be like “this is random and unintentional but leave it in because whatever.”
No, when you come across a hardware limitation, you’re going to be like well what can we do with this limitation? We have these options and option V is the best option, so lets do option V until we can get better hardware.
Intentional designs based on hardware limitations are intentional.
The debuff limit is more like the issue with the default backup, the coded it a specific way and it ended up being hard to change.
As opposed to batching which was a technical issue with them literally having to run the servers that way for them to work. Since that’s no longer the case there’s no need for batching and all the stupid junk that happens because of it.
You keep using this statement but seem to forget the fact that every single person was using the same batch system at the same time, meaning no one had an upper hand.
It is fine if you don’t like it and want them to use the new system but calling it a bug or exploit is just wrong.
6 Likes
but the above ISNT intentional? like i said earlier- you are twisting the definition of intention, to argue for an exploit that you know blizzard intentionally removed/fixed.
Ion: “We raised that debuff to 16 in 2005, but that’s where it stood until Burning Crusade when we raised it to 40. Today it’s like 255, effectively uncapped.”
what part of unfair advantage do people not comprehend?
so if a mage is running away from his opponent, a warrior should be able to take advantage of a limitation, that allowed him to speed run and over take his opponent. to only then be 5 yards away, out of range and somehow still kill him with something that didnt even land?
lol
1 Like
The flowchart stance is much simpler because you don’t have to mess around with arbitrary definitions and lines in the sand. You just recreate it like it was in 2006 and call it a day. It’s not about what people want or what feature should or should not be in, that part was already decided for us back in 2006.
You can’t make unintentional decisions. You can have unintentional consequences of those decisions, but you can’t make unintentional decisions.
They had a hardware limitation. They decided batching was the best solution at the time. That wasn’t an unintentional decision. It just had unintentional consequences, unless you’re going to tell me the 8 debuff limit originally was unintentional too.