Since there’s a 30 per day limit

I hope this is just trolling. You’ve been given the citation. You’ve had the citation explained to you. You’ve persisted that the instance cap is not related to measures taken against botting. Now you have the gall to chastise someone for arguing semantics. What is wrong with your brain? How do you manage to hold normal conversations when you’re willing to jump through so many hoops to ignore that you’re wrong? Unreal.

You’re a joke, my dude.

6 Likes

I did no such thing. I refuted your claim that it was “sold as a solution to botting”. I explained that is was not a “solution” by pointing out the rest of that sentence, the part where it states “part of ongoing efforts to eliminate”.
Part of ongoing efforts =/= the entire solution.

I bolded the part about “exploitative”, showing the it was not JUST botting it was part of ongoing efforts to eliminate. But hey, keep pretending that the change is just about botting and that the change was “sold as a solution”.

I love when you lot resort to insults.

There are plenty of alternatives to those items that are only barely worse. It is not worth the grind to get them. The amount of variance in your parses due to random luck will be much higher than the variance due to replacing those items with their alternatives.

If you take stabs at them periodically for fun or got them while leveling, cool. But anyone who actually just goes in there and grinds it out is exhibiting serious OCD-like addictive behavior and probably needs therapy.

1 Like

Incremental gains is the entire endgame of WoW. Alternative to items isn’t relevant to a discussion of allowing players to grind at all or limiting how much a player can grind for them. The point is that a player is being gated from grinding for this item for reasons that don’t involve them. They are not exploiting the game. They are not botting the game. They are playing it legitimately to participate in a very long grind, but being met with an additional time gate. On top of that, it’s an account wide time gate. It’s completely ridiculous to dissuade players from playing the game in a an attempt to throttle botting; especially so when it’s an ineffective but cost effective attempt at that.

exploitative gameplay AND automated gameplay

does putting the noun on both sides make it easier to understand?

we’ve had 5 instances/hr cap for years - we’ve already had limitations

i would be inclined to agree with you if you have the data that shows this opinion to be true, but it sounds like “my feels” cause you are personally affected by the change.

Learn how to read. The positioning of the noun matters. It is not lumping exploitative gameplay and automated gameplay together. It is defining the gameplay as both exploitative and automated. Grammar matters. The meaning of this sentence matters. For the love of god, learn how to read.

3 Likes

Just ignore the Misadventure guy, he’s been coming in and posting in every one of these threads about 3 minutes after they are posted 24/7 for the past 3 weeks. This guy is the actual biggest turd in these entire forums and just wants attention. Tbh, the guy needs to be banned from the forums. I put him on ignore and every thread I click on he has 3-4 posts. The guy is a straight up loser. He has over 200 replies to the main thread.

4 Likes

Oh look, it is the anti-cap player who said they quit because of the cap, created a slew of threads on it, and is still here harping on it.

See it took a whole 3 minutes to get the forum troll to come in and opinion spout. Imagine that. All I see is “View Hidden Reply” and it’s so satisfying like looking at poop on toilet paper after wiping.

1 Like

Maybe you should actually say whatever it is you are trying to say. I know the history of the lockout very well and have no idea what point you are trying to make.

1 Like

It was done because of too many concurrent instances, putting strain on server resources.

I think that is a fair way to describe it. I don’t see how that invalidates the OP’s point though.

The point is that while related to the 30/24 cap, it is not the exact same reason for the cap. Getting rid of the 5/hr cap would defeat it’s original purpose.

Funny, I’m timegated out of my endgame items too. Only one chance at a drop per week, can you imagine?

6 Likes

Nuance is required so the reward structure doesn’t collapse onto itself, but it matters that gating raid content gates the ultimate rewards in the structure whereas gating dungeons gates how much players can farm. The raid drops are the goal of the endgame, and that’s why gating them to throttle the top end of players makes sense. It’s why raids are released in segments over on retail as well.

If you want to go down that road, Blizzard already defeated it’s original purpose. Live servers have a 10 instance per hour limit and no daily cap. Servers can handle exponentially more instances than they could fifteen years ago. It’s no longer an issue. The problem has long been solved.

SGC is BIS until AQ. HoJ is pretty high up there as well. The princess dagger too. Gating them is no less important than gating raid loot.

Hell, MCP is the BIS for druids throughout the entirety of vanilla classic.

We are not talking about live servers. We are talking about vanilla classic.

I’m not sure what your point is, it’s the same hardware and it’s the same code base.

Blizzard may feel it helps in other ways as well, related to throttling overall instance resets. :man_shrugging:

Fact is, nobody has made a compelling case to NOT have the 5/hr cap.

1 Like