Since there’s a 30 per day limit

The original devs of vanilla made an April fool’s joke of having daily instance limits.

Not only did classic devs add something to the game that the original devs thought would be a joke change, they made it even more restrictive of 30/day vs the jokes 40/day limit.

When it goes directly against what the vanilla devs thought at the time was good/bad for the game it does go directly against the design goals of vanilla.

Many changes could be argued that they didn’t do X or Y because of limitations but this change was shown to be an absolute joke in the eyes of the vanilla dev team. Proof is the 2006 April fool’s joke…

Now you’re being deliberately disingenuous.

Each character on a player’s account may enter the same dungeon up to three times per day, and may visit a total of five dungeons over the course of a twenty-four hour period. Keep in mind, each character on your account is flagged separately so with eight characters, that’s a total of 40 dungeon-runs per day!

You only got 40 a day if you had 8 characters to spam dungeons on, and each character could only do repeats of a single instance 3 times in a day. If you’re going to reference the joke notes, don’t lie about them by omission. The joke notes instance lock was substantially more restrictive.

I couldn’t care less about WoW-Originalism arguments, notably when lessons learned and assumptions about player behavior has evolved substantially in the last 15 years.

If and only if you pare out the various absurd parts of the joke notes to make them appear less restrictive than our current scenario… sure…

Don’t lie to make a point.


Was a great change, and the meltdown by the L60 mages shows that it was a direct hit on the issue it was meant to curtail.

The core part of vanilla, being destroying server economies? Heaven forbid such a valuable thing be lost.

1 Like

No they didn’t. You keep citing a small snippet of that joke.

New Dungeon Visitation Limitation System

Each character on a player’s account may enter the same dungeon up to three times per day, and may visit a total of five dungeons over the course of a twenty-four hour period. Keep in mind, each character on your account is flagged separately so with eight characters, that’s a total of 40 dungeon-runs per day!

Dang, you got to the dishonesty before I could.


He’s right though. This is English and not boolean logic.

Such as “Our dinner choices are fried rice and hamburgers.”

No. I already explained this as plainly as possible.

The big cat and the fat cat.
The big and fat cat.

The exploitative gameplay and the automated gameplay.
The exploitative and automated gameplay.

1 Like

Natural language, especially English, often does not follow the rules of logic. English is extremely inconsistent and depends heavily on context. It’s also extremely easy to trip up when using the language, or to play linguistic games to cloud the true meaning of an issue. Case in point is when President Clinton disputed the meaning of the word “is” in his statement to the special prosecutor regarding his affair with Monica Lewinsky:

Q: Mr. President, I want to, before I go into a new subject area, briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bittman. The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at Paula Jones deposition, “Counsel is fully aware” – it’s page 54, line 5 – “Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton”. That statement is made by your attorney in front Judge Susan Webber Wright, correct?

A: That’s correct.

Q: That statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was “no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton,” was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?

A: It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. If the – if he – if “is” means is and never has been that is not – that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.

Both of these are acceptable interpretations.

Your head would explode in a statutory interpretation course if you think this phrase means one thing and one thing only.

1 Like

I don’t know, this guy seems well on his way to being a successful lawyer provided he gets the right judge. And there’s plenty of dumb judges out there lol.

I regret to inform you that english, written and spoken, follows grammatical rules.

1 Like

Oh you sweet summer child

Of which have no bearing on the meaning of this sentence as interpreted.

There is literally a SCOTUS decision about the meaning of the phrase “to carry” and it resulted in Justices arguing multiple dictionaries, works of literature, and the Bible, for sussing out the full meaning and use of the words.

But that being said, the use of the word “and” is not strictly Boolean as Seally pointed out. A list is provided and can reasonably be interpreted to mean separate types of gameplay: exploitative only, automated only, and exploitative and automated together.

Finally, this is subject to Blizzard interpretation, not your own. They have in the past curbed exploitative gameplay specifically. They’ve also curbed abusive, harmful, toxic, unfair, unreasonable, and automated gameplay as well (and to be sure, this list is also not boolean either).

1 Like

Done, but every time you run a dungeon repeatedly, all the items have reduced chance of dropping until it’s possible you don’t get any loot at all.

So it’s left to common sense to conclude why the it was phrased as “exploitative and automated gameplay” rather than as “exploitative gameplay and automated gameplay”, or even as “both exploitative and automated gameplay”. The sensible conclusion is that the sentence in referring to gameplay that is both exploitative and automated.

Or that it is a 2-item list, in which commas are unnecessary.

1 Like

Above arguments are precisely why blizzard is vague about things. To wit: The lawyering about oxford commas

1 Like

While I understand where you’re coming from, exactly how much strain has the above placed on blizzard?

I hate the change as much as you but like, it’s pretty clear that they weren’t referring to only gameplay that is both automated and exploitative.

Sure language has rules and all that, but theres really only one rule that matters:

Did you understand what I was talking about? If yes, no other rules apply.

The answer to that question is clearly “no” given the radically different interpretations of what they said.

I personally understood the phrase to mean exploitative gameplay to be one of the types of gameplay they were targeting. I don’t believe the use of the word “and” necessarily implies that the gameplay was both exploitative and automated.

For example, a proper English sentence might read “I enjoying playing ranged DPS and healer classes.” That doesn’t mean that I like classes that are both ranged DPS and healers.

The confusion seems to come from the word “gameplay,” which is singular, but can describe numerous different behaviors. You don’t say “We are targeting exploitative and automated gameplays” like you would say “ranged and healer classes.” Turn “classes” into “class” and suddenly the argument makes more sense. “I enjoy playing a ranged DPS and healer class.”

Gameplay is being interpreted as singular, so adjectives connected with “and” are interpreted to only apply to one collective set of behaviors. This can be demonstrated with another word that is the same for both plural and singular.

“I enjoying drawing big and fuzzy caribou.” Do I draw caribou that are both big and fuzzy, or do I draw big caribou and fuzzy caribou?

“I enjoy casual and min/max gameplay.” Do I enjoy gameplay that is both casual and min/max, or do I enjoy min/max gameplay and casual gameplay?

he’ll die on his mole hill - i wouldn’t bother

It isn’t quite this simple, but this gets to the crux of the problem. Common sense understanding can lead someone to understand a statement like:

exploitative and automated gameplay

As either a 2-item list or a singular thing. We normally use commas to separate out items in a list, but when you only have two items the comma is dropped and confusion can abound.

Reasonable interpretation leans heavily towards it being a 2-item list because:

  • Exploitative and automated are terms that can describe one another, making their use as a conjoined and singular term somewhat redundant
  • Exploitative and automated are terms that can be used independently without the other
  • Blizzard is not barred from or hindered by initiating changes that limit exploitative or automated gameplay individually
  • Blizzard is motivated to, and has declared itself as such, eliminate both exploitative and automated gameplay, along with many other types of gameplay
  • Blizzard is free to define exploitative and automated gameplay how it chooses

So while someone may interpret the phrase as a singularly narrow type of action, it is not the only valid interpretation, and it is the least likely interpretation given the rest of the evidence.