Hey, Wain/Noah... a ruling please...

[Vetiver]

blizzard has no idea you have tamed an awesome pet unless someone reports you. who is going to do that? unless you very foolishly report yourself ("dear blizzard, i got this awesome pet with this buff i'm not supposed to have. is this ok?") you are free and clear. trust me.

it's the same thing with offensive names. you are only forced to change your name when someone reports you, because honestly they just don't even know before then. this game is huge and they are locked in an eternal battle with underground miners, speed hackers, internet harrassment, and stolen accounts. your nifty hunter pet is basically at the bottom of their to do list unless you are an ass and have tamed one with a damage buff.

[Slickrock]

blizzard has no idea you have tamed an awesome pet unless someone reports you. who is going to do that? unless you very foolishly report yourself ("dear blizzard, i got this awesome pet with this buff i'm not supposed to have. is this ok?") you are free and clear. trust me.

it's the same thing with offensive names. you are only forced to change your name when someone reports you, because honestly they just don't even know before then. this game is huge and they are locked in an eternal battle with underground miners, speed hackers, internet harrassment, and stolen accounts. your nifty hunter pet is basically at the bottom of their to do list unless you are an ass and have tamed one with a damage buff.

Yes, we essentially have here the "haves" wagging their finger at the 'have nots" saying "you can't do that anymore", because of a vague blue post that was discussing a larger problem (pets with buffs that could alter gameplay).

I mentioned it to the dev. previously but did not receive any feedback on this particular matter. I won't bug him again about it. He'll reply if he so wishes

This says to me "We really don't want to do all the crap it will take to fix this" and "We really don't care". But of course they can't actually say that. So like other issues they ignore it because it's difficult enough to fix and not worth the time.

So my reading?.. Go death-timer-tame a pet if you want, but beware it might be harder than it used to be, and at somepoint you might get the pet zapped.

[Taaveti]

Since Blizzard did try to fix this issue, they have made their stance pretty clear that taming one now will be against Blizzard's wish, and that is probably enough to say that if you are going to do it, you take the risk for it to be a bannable offense. Something called 'thin ice' principle where you willingly accept the risk on doing something on the edge to become punishable. (Not to forget that Blizzard did reserve the right for the final decision on any disputes inside the gaming world, unless this exemption clause can be proven to be invalid.)

So if you find yourself fully prepared for whatever consequences it may have, then you may go ahead.

[Kalliope]

The following post is my own thoughts on the matter and in no way reflects Petopia, Mania, or the other mods.

It looks to me as though Blizzard is turning a blind eye to these tames. Yes, technically, these pets are against the rules, but so long as no one is taming the pets that have damage-dealing debuffs or anything, they're harmless.

This reminds me of a similar situation on my server, where players have used a mod to allow conversations between alliance and horde for years. Obviously, said mod violates Blizzard's rules, but regardless of it being reported, Blizzard has pretty much ignored the mod and the players who use it. A lot of the benefits of said mod have been met by Real ID now (thusly nullifying it), but a few years ago, it was a big deal.

By getting an official ruling from Noah or anyone else, Blizzard will have to acknowledge that the window of opportunity is still open, and therefore, will be under pressure to actually crack down on this. If we police ourselves by using common sense and not taming anything that has more than a cosmetic effect, then we can remain in Blizzard's intentional "blind spot." If not, well, they'll end up cracking down on it.

It goes without saying that there's a risk involved, but this does appear to be one of those situations where we're getting a pass, at least for the moment. We're being given the gift of willful ignorance, so hounding Blizzard for an official stance is futile, and on a certain level, counter-productive.

[Slickrock]

By getting an official ruling from Noah or anyone else, Blizzard will have to acknowledge that the window of opportunity is still open, and therefore, will be under pressure to actually crack down on this. If we police ourselves by using common sense and not taming anything that has more than a cosmetic effect, then we can remain in Blizzard's intentional "blind spot." If not, well, they'll end up cracking down on it.

It goes without saying that there's a risk involved, but this does appear to be one of those situations where we're getting a pass, at least for the moment. We're being given the gift of willful ignorance, so hounding Blizzard for an official stance is futile, and on a certain level, counter-productive.

I actually agree here. But the tone of the "warnings" by those that have the pets already to the new folk that ask about it, is getting tiring.

Kinda like a lady that I know that has a fit about anyone who drives faster than she does, even though she goes over the speed limit.

[Kalliope]

But the tone of the "warnings" by those that have the pets already to the new folk that ask about it, is getting tiring.

That's a separate issue. As discussed previously, it is okay (and even a good idea) for players looking to tame these pets to be warned that "this might not be okay" in a neutral "just so you're aware" sort of tone. It is NOT okay to harass others to make the same choice that you (the general "you") made.

Making sure newcomers to the situation make an informed decision is good.
Harassing them until they make the same one as you (again, the general "you") is not.

The situation is gray, neither doom and gloom nor completely clear. Use good judgment before posting.

Live and let live. There's not much else to say at this point.

[Pent]

This thread is leading no where and is boring.

We should talk about Madexx instead.

[Lisaara]

By getting an official ruling from Noah or anyone else, Blizzard will have to acknowledge that the window of opportunity is still open, and therefore, will be under pressure to actually crack down on this. If we police ourselves by using common sense and not taming anything that has more than a cosmetic effect, then we can remain in Blizzard's intentional "blind spot." If not, well, they'll end up cracking down on it.

It goes without saying that there's a risk involved, but this does appear to be one of those situations where we're getting a pass, at least for the moment. We're being given the gift of willful ignorance, so hounding Blizzard for an official stance is futile, and on a certain level, counter-productive.

I actually agree here. But the tone of the "warnings" by those that have the pets already to the new folk that ask about it, is getting tiring.

Kinda like a lady that I know that has a fit about anyone who drives faster than she does, even though she goes over the speed limit.

Except the mods of Petopia, in a different thread, said it's okay to give warning because we don't know what Blizzard will do. Better to be armed with knowledge than to be blind to what consequences COULD occur. So please don't talk down about those of us trying to arm others that they could get into trouble with Blizzard should they decide to crack down on it.

EDIT: Seems Kalli already said what I just did. XD Carry on! Thank you, Kalli.

[TygerDarkstorm]

After talking to my boyfriend about it (he's been playing for 6 years), he says that the most that will probably happen to anyone who tames these pets is a slap on the wrist. I guess he's been talked to quite a bit about wall-jumping and never was it more than a talking to and probably being ported out of the area or something.

For now, Blizzard's turning a blind eye. If you must have one of these "unique" (and I say it that way because the more people tame it, the less unique it becomes (like rare pets)), pets, then please be smart about it and don't try going out and getting any with the advantageous buffs.

Personally, the Lone Hunter with a knife in his head creeps me out and makes me feel nauseous, but if that's what some like...more power to them I guess.

[Nightsights]

i may be missing something here, it took me a while to find it. here is the blue post about this issue

"It is no longer possible for hunters to tame pets in a way that allows them to keep any buffs the creatures had on them prior to being tamed."

unless it is still possible to tame these pets, then they have not "hotfixed" it during the dec 13 hotfix.

i believe there were already a couple of threads about this back when the hotfix was announced by blizz.

[Vephriel]

*nods* That is one of the only direct responses we have seen from Blizzard on the matter. There are still ways in which to obtain the pets being discussed, however, and that is where the ambiguity becomes frustrating.

I realize that people are looking for a definitive answer on the subject, but unfortunately no statement has been made to clear things up. Everything is speculation until Blizzard chooses to address the topic, and we know that they have been informed. The ball is in their court.

What's important to keep in mind right now, and what I'd like to reinforce, is what Kalli explained earlier.

It is okay (and even a good idea) for players looking to tame these pets to be warned that "this might not be okay" in a neutral "just so you're aware" sort of tone. It is NOT okay to harass others to make the same choice that you (the general "you") made.

Making sure newcomers to the situation make an informed decision is good.
Harassing them until they make the same one as you (again, the general "you") is not.

I understand that many of you have the best intentions when it comes to informing others about the possible risks, but there is a difference between giving out warnings and trying to police others. Likewise there is no reason to become overly belligerent towards those that are trying to help the uninformed. Let's not turn on each other here or let something like this come between community members.

[Pent]

I didn't read most of the thread... and I know you can still tame these pets...

...but can you still tame the ones that had a "damage" buff on them?

If Blizzard says it is fixed, but you can still do it... but the damaging buff can't be kept like it use to... then maybe Blizzard doesn't care about anything else.

[Kikanu]

So much of the same thing being said, sheesh.

A sign says "Keep Out!", you walk in. You broke the rule.
A blank sign that was left unattended is there instead. Do you know if you're breaking a rule? Maybe, maybe not.
Blank sign is later finished with "Don't go in there!". Going in AFTER the sign is up means it's against the rules.

Pets previously tamed BEFORE the hotfix got to keep them, much like the Spirit Wolf and the Slime/Hydra. This is still possible, unlike the mentioned pets, but it's like a rickety bridge; You CAN do it, but it's not advised.

Pent; I tried it on the ugly dogs in EPL. Nope, the damage debuff never stays, even after 10 tries. Ten's a fair number to give up at, in my opinion. Others with auras that aren't visible buffs, however, stay.

[Acherontia]

Wait, the damage-buff ones aren't tameable? Really? I'm going to have to give that a shot; if that's the case, then they ONLY fixed those ones.

I know for a fact the others are still quite "gettable" so finding that out might give us a clearer picture as to what they'd intended.

[Lisaara]

Wait, the damage-buff ones aren't tameable? Really? I'm going to have to give that a shot; if that's the case, then they ONLY fixed those ones.

I know for a fact the others are still quite "gettable" so finding that out might give us a clearer picture as to what they'd intended.

I will admit I got the oil wolf without any problems, if it means much, just to see if it was still gettable, even with the PetAbandon script. I got it within 3 tries. So if thats the case, that may clear up a lot of things. While I have advised people nicely that it's not advised to do this, I would like to see the harmless 'buffs' be allowed.

[Pent]

In that case... I apologize for not saying something about the damaging buffs earlier in the thread...



But I would be willing to bet that if you can still tame all of the pets with the appearance buffs, and you can still tame the ones that had the damage buff on them... BUT the damage buff will no longer be there after the tame... then that was what Blizzard was talking about fixing.

Of course, I don't think you are going to get Blizzard to come out and say "Yeah, sure... tame those pets that have appearance buffs because that is working as intended."

But who knows...

[Lisaara]

I can believe that, Pent. :3

[SpiritBinder]

The following post is my own thoughts on the matter and in no way reflects Petopia, Mania, or the other mods.

It looks to me as though Blizzard is turning a blind eye to these tames. Yes, technically, these pets are against the rules, but so long as no one is taming the pets that have damage-dealing debuffs or anything, they're harmless.

This reminds me of a similar situation on my server, where players have used a mod to allow conversations between alliance and horde for years. Obviously, said mod violates Blizzard's rules, but regardless of it being reported, Blizzard has pretty much ignored the mod and the players who use it. A lot of the benefits of said mod have been met by Real ID now (thusly nullifying it), but a few years ago, it was a big deal.

By getting an official ruling from Noah or anyone else, Blizzard will have to acknowledge that the window of opportunity is still open, and therefore, will be under pressure to actually crack down on this. If we police ourselves by using common sense and not taming anything that has more than a cosmetic effect, then we can remain in Blizzard's intentional "blind spot." If not, well, they'll end up cracking down on it.

It goes without saying that there's a risk involved, but this does appear to be one of those situations where we're getting a pass, at least for the moment. We're being given the gift of willful ignorance, so hounding Blizzard for an official stance is futile, and on a certain level, counter-productive.

LOL Kalli, I swear your so dam sensible and on the money.... like, all the time! <3<3<3
This thread has been officially answeared. Someone make the girl a Stablemast... oh wait

[Wain]

I have a reply from Noah...

(And first, no, a lack of response from him up till now didn't imply any subtexts... it just meant he was busy and/or checking with the class devs and I wasn't going to bug him again till I heard back!)

His response is this (paraphrased):

- Any retained features that are actual buffs are a definite no-no. Anything that affects class balance by buffing your pet is out.
- For anything that just affects cosmetics/appearance, you have to use your best judgement. If another player could conceivably get upset because it somehow affects gameplay - making it difficult to target, obscuring vision, (maybe looking like a worgen player? ) etc. then the upset player could conceivably report it and the pet would most likely be taken away. It's very unlikely anyone would get banned and it wouldn't be very nice if they were. If you did get banned over a purely cosmetic buff, he said to mention it. If it's just a little blue aura or something that you use for pve or solo or wehatever, it's highly unlikely anyone will care.

Then again if you already had a pet removed because the cosmetic buff was causing issues that made players report it, and you went and did exactly the same thing again, I imagine you'd be treated with less sympathy (my own words, not his)

EDIT: also forgot to mention that Blizzard are working towards more stringent fixes for retained buffs, but I was given no time frame on that. Not sure if anyone is currently working on appearance-only ones.

[Kalliope]

Thank you Wain for passing that on and Noah for clarifying things from an official standpoint. Since there's no question as to where things stand now, I'm going to lock this thread.