You should get a refund.
3 Likes
The reality is he doesn’t have said education. No one with a certificate or degree in the field is going to completely misuse the term semantics, at worst they’re going to use it to mean “you’re nitpicking.”
1 Like
The exploit is bypassing the UI restriction for raid queuing and forming a “raid group” using third party voice comms.
Again, agreed, but by doing nothing, they are contradicting themselves, since that’s not all that was stated in that thread.
Let’s have more context.
They also stated:
Any addon that enables a full, organized Battleground group to queue against a randomly assembled group is creating a scenario where that coordinated group has a huge advantage. That is not in the spirit of the experience we want to provide in the normal Battleground queue. Playing with friends is fun and important, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of the spirit of the game nor the fun of others.
The normal Battleground queue is for players to jump in and play against other players in a similar situation. We realize that it’s not a perfect system, and we’re still looking at ways to improve normal Battleground queues further. Regardless, it’s not meant for organized groups to “pug stomp” and get quick Honor. We have built in outlets for players that want to organize–if a competitive, social experience was really the goal, then there are clear ways to achieve that.
The ultimate effect that this kind of queuing has had is to drive players away from PvP. Perhaps it’s been a long time since you’ve been in a random group, but a lot of players will see that they’re up against a premade and simply quit. At best, they suffer through it. To an extent premade groups count on this. Heck, one of the popular addons announces opposing players that appear to have rage quit.
You’re all focusing on ADDON, while ignoring the whole rest of the context.
That’s literally, verbatim, being
As he stated, and he’s 100% right.
Regardless, what of the games that you played that weren’t against other pre-mades? Just hapless casualties to your fun, I suppose?
Based on your enthusiasm for “true Player vs Player” combat, I’m sure that you’ll find War Games and Rated Battlegrounds quite compelling.
We’re just making our stance on the subject clear, so that there’s no room for misunderstanding.
Finally:
We’re open to exploring the possibility of creating a pre-made queue for Battlegrounds, or improving the War Game system in some way.
I’d say it’s time, Blizzard. Been 12 years. I know you love to ignore PvP, but throw us a bone here.
lmao
Does it make you feel special that you can look up a Wikipedia article and copy-paste something into a video game forum?
Your arguments are semantical because you are interpreting the meaning of something from one specific word rather than looking at the whole context. Your focus shouldn’t be on what they actioned, but rather why they took action, because that’s largely the more important thing here.
Maybe your time spent on these forums has given you heightened sense of superiority, but you should probably sit this one out just this time. 
It’s done pretty well for me so far in life, but I appreciate the concern.
I think you missed the “manually” part of the post
It is not semantical. There is no question as to the meaning, correlative or otherwise, of the words and concepts in use. We’re all under the same premise of what an exploit, an addon, queue syncing, and all other relevant terms being used means.
Had I not quoted something, you’d have turned this into an argument over semantics that lasts longer than this.
I am not interpreting meaning. I quite literally moved two asterisks in your quote one sentence back.
I didn’t. It does not go against their stated context.
I already conceded that they do not consider it an exploit, despite me and others thinking otherwise.
The point of this topic is to show that we’re again reaching critical mass and they should review their standing on it, or look like hypocrites when not doing so.
Then I don’t know why you’re arguing right now.
You’re on the same page as Ayukama and I.
Your evidence for this is where?
This is where the exploiting happens. However this form of cheating is extremely difficult to track without spying on other applications like Discord. Blizzard seriously needs to find a way to track this and ban the people that do it. It’s ruined casual PvP this expansion
2 Likes
I already told you that.
In summary:
1 - I know Blizzard, by their silence, does not consider sync queuing using external means an exploit.
2 - I also know that goes against their stated 2012 reasoning for banning the “addon version” of it.
3 - I’m trying, with my posts, to make Blizzard realize that they look stupid when not treating the matter as an exploit, both by ignoring their previous (2012) reasoning over it and their own ToU.
The whole point of this and other threads is to bring attention to the disrupting behavior of premades in random BGs (which should, by their own definition of Cheating in the ToU, be considered an exploit with little to no margin for interpretation) and ask for some response over it.
So far, all we’ve officially gotten is “silence”.
1 Like
Let me try and explain it this way:
You got 3 types in this entire scenario:
- People who hate people on Queue-Sync
- People who Queue-Sync
- People who love to vs against any groups, including those who queue-sync.
Blizzard development is complex when it comes to balancing these sort of things or taking stances on this sort of thing, because you can’t deal with one without effecting the other. Yes, there were addons in the past that automated the process, but that is where Blizzard took a stance on that. If they went further, then things could end up being much different, and whether for the better, or the worse, this isn’t something I couldn’t say, but this could be something that could upset more people.
Now, it is clear that automation isn’t allowed, and Blizzard takes a huge stance on all sorts of automation, regardless of what it is for.
Now, put yourself in the developers shoes, if you have the option, what would you do?
A. Leave it and only deal with the automation process?
B. Deal with it, and upset more players just for a small group of players?
I know. My confusion stems from you taking a sided stance with Ratherin, who is very much still trying to argue that Blizzard considers it an exploit:
Thus the repeated mention of punishment.
I suppose to be fair to Ratherin, it’s less that he thinks Blizzard considers it an exploit and more that he insists his belief that it’s an exploit should necessitate they fall in line.
Ironic, given that he thinks I’m trying to act superior.
That’s not how this works. It is clearly stated in their Code of Conduct that any behavior that creates an unfair advantage or degrades the gaming experience of other players is considering cheating and is to be punished severely. So, by Blizzard’s own definition of cheating, yes, sync queueing IS an exploit. You cannot just interpret “silence” as a stance on an issue.
Syncing queues is a means of bypassing the in-game group limitation, which is cheating by bypassing a game mechanic.
1 Like
Play that victim card hard lol
You have no proof sync queue people are the majority…
I really doubt that solo players are the minority here.
Even if they were, their reasoning for action in 2012 is still solid, today:
The ultimate effect that this kind of queuing has had is to drive players away from PvP.
If that’s their goal now, then I guess it’s ok. 
I don’t think people should be punished over it either.
I addressed that in point 3 of that very post.
1 Like
Yeah, sure is cheating.
1 Like
I’m not even certain that you actually understand the article you quoted because it effectively proves what I’m saying, even if it is a questionable resource, at best.
Correct, and when I asked you what it was about the sentence that made any difference, you made it very clear what the issue was:
Automated queueing.
This is what a semantics argument is. The fact is that Blizzard has taken action on synchronized queueing in the past, and they explicitly outlined their reasoning for doing so. It’s not because it was automated. It was because it had a direct impact on the enjoyment of the game.
In that context, Blizzard’s actions on this matter are aligned with the requests of the OP. They are asking for them to do something about synchronized queueing because it’s impacting the enjoyment of the game.
But in your eyes, because it says automated queueing, it’s not applicable to the situation even though the intent is the same.
This is semantics. You used one word and extrapolated all the meaning you possibly could to make your point. A bad point, at that.
But listen, I get it. Maybe your time here has led you to believe that you can just make these bad-faith arguments without any pushback. There’s a lot of low-hanging fruit on the forums so it wouldn’t surprise me.
I’m just using an example of 1/3rd for each.
Blizzard has all the data, so they know a lot more.