How To: Tame Pets With Appearance Buffs

[spiritbx]

well its like if wanted to kill a duck with our gun, blizzard took away our gun and said that it wasn't possible to kill the duck. If i get a slingshot and kill the duck with it, it not what blizz wanted, but they never said i wasnt allowd to kill it. it was a bad wording from blizzard, but contract wise, insinuating something isnt really a wise choice if you wanna get your point across.

hopefully blizzard will make a more precise post on this, since anything that can be debated this easily isnt gonna leave anyone happy.

[TygerDarkstorm]

That's a bad, and one-sided example. They didn't take our "gun" away because we can still tame pets. If we were meant to tame the appearance pets, they wouldn't get cleansed upon taming.

[Cialbi]

well its like if wanted to kill a duck with our gun, blizzard took away our gun and said that it wasn't possible to kill the duck. If i get a slingshot and kill the duck with it, it not what blizz wanted, but they never said i wasnt allowd to kill it. it was a bad wording from blizzard, but contract wise, insinuating something isnt really a wise choice if you wanna get your point across.

hopefully blizzard will make a more precise post on this, since anything that can be debated this easily isnt gonna leave anyone happy.

By that analogy, what is happening is that Blizzard is trying to make the duck unkillable, rather than taking away the tool that you used to kill the duck (you need the gun for legitimate reasons, like shooting that angry ogre over there). You figure out a convoluted method to kill the duck, even though Blizzard had already tried to make it unkillable because they never intended it to be killed. Inevitably, the resolution is that Blizzard figures out how to make the duck unkillable. Beyond this, the analogy is a poor one, as it fails to stress why the duck being unkillable is important, and the consequences of you killing the duck (other than the loss of life on the part of the duck, which is a consequence that isn't really analogous to the issue).

As for the contract you as a user have with Blizzard (no more analogy), it is up to Blizzard whether or not you can use your account. Paying the monthly fee does not give you a right to play their game. Whether or not you can play the game is all dependent on the Terms of Service and End User License Agreement that Blizzard has prepared. If you have agreed to both ToS and EULA, have paid a monthly fee recently enough, and have not violated the ToS and EULA, then you are on better footing. However, these agreements clearly state that Blizzard can do whatever they please to your account, including deletion of the account entirely, at any time and for any reason or no reason at all. Since you have no ownership rights to anything in your account, Blizzard does not have to compensate you. Since Blizzard wants your money, and knows that you probably wouldn't be very willing to give it to them unless they let you play their game in return, they probably won't touch your account unless you violate the EULA or ToS.

TL;DR - This isn't a question of whether or not Blizzard has legal grounds to ban you if you use this taming method, but rather a question of whether you doing so will prompt Blizzard to ban you as a disciplinary measure. This is because Blizzard already has the right to ban you; you gave it to them by agreeing to their Terms of Service. Hence, they can be a vague as they want to on this issue, and still choose to ban you for exploiting this issue.

[Lisaara]

I probably would've added they could get banned so it would be at their own risk.

"Blizzard has attempted to hotfix the taming of buffed pets, though the definition of "buffed" is debated. If you attempt this, you are doing so at your own risk!!"


^ It says this

I meant I would've edited as such:

"Blizzard has attempted to hotfix the taming of buffed pets, though the definition of "buffed" is debated. If you attempt this, you are possibly putting your account in jeopardy so do so at your own risk!!"

well its like if wanted to kill a duck with our gun, blizzard took away our gun and said that it wasn't possible to kill the duck. If i get a slingshot and kill the duck with it, it not what blizz wanted, but they never said i wasnt allowd to kill it. it was a bad wording from blizzard, but contract wise, insinuating something isnt really a wise choice if you wanna get your point across.

hopefully blizzard will make a more precise post on this, since anything that can be debated this easily isnt gonna leave anyone happy.

By that analogy, what is happening is that Blizzard is trying to make the duck unkillable, rather than taking away the tool that you used to kill the duck (you need the gun for legitimate reasons, like shooting that angry ogre over there). You figure out a convoluted method to kill the duck, even though Blizzard had already tried to make it unkillable because they never intended it to be killed. Inevitably, the resolution is that Blizzard figures out how to make the duck unkillable. Beyond this, the analogy is a poor one, as it fails to stress why the duck being unkillable is important, and the consequences of you killing the duck (other than the loss of life on the part of the duck, which is a consequence that isn't really analogous to the issue).

As for the contract you as a user have with Blizzard (no more analogy), it is up to Blizzard whether or not you can use your account. Paying the monthly fee does not give you a right to play their game. Whether or not you can play the game is all dependent on the Terms of Service and End User License Agreement that Blizzard has prepared. If you have agreed to both ToS and EULA, have paid a monthly fee recently enough, and have not violated the ToS and EULA, then you are on better footing. However, these agreements clearly state that Blizzard can do whatever they please to your account, including deletion of the account entirely, at any time and for any reason or no reason at all. Since you have no ownership rights to anything in your account, Blizzard does not have to compensate you. Since Blizzard wants your money, and knows that you probably wouldn't be very willing to give it to them unless they let you play their game in return, they probably won't touch your account unless you violate the EULA or ToS.

TL;DR - This isn't a question of whether or not Blizzard has legal grounds to ban you if you use this taming method, but rather a question of whether you doing so will prompt Blizzard to ban you as a disciplinary measure. This is because Blizzard already has the right to ban you; you gave it to them by agreeing to their Terms of Service. Hence, they can be a vague as they want to on this issue, and still choose to ban you for exploiting this issue.

Very well said.

/applaud

[Kalliope]

I probably would've added they could get banned so it would be at their own risk.

"Blizzard has attempted to hotfix the taming of buffed pets, though the definition of "buffed" is debated. If you attempt this, you are doing so at your own risk!!"


^ It says this

I meant I would've edited as such:

"Blizzard has attempted to hotfix the taming of buffed pets, though the definition of "buffed" is debated. If you attempt this, you are possibly putting your account in jeopardy so do so at your own risk!!"

You're saying the same thing with more words. Not sure I see the point, honestly.

[Novikova]

Novi would say this is cool, but something best left in the past.

[Lisaara]

May be more words, Kalli, but it's a HUGE warning and that way theres no misconceptions. Nothing is wrong with extra details so people dont cry and say "I didnt know!" when the disclaimer was detailed and clearly stated.

[huntera]

Has anyone tried this on runty in blackrock caverns? would he stay smaller and keep his buff?

[TygerDarkstorm]

Has anyone tried this on runty in blackrock caverns? would he stay smaller and keep his buff?

Those baby corehounds aren't tamable. They're just super sized versions of the mini pet. And as it's been said before, you should not be looking for pets with buffs to tame now that Blizzard's said no unless you want the potential risk to your account.

[l2p4]

so ones again, can u confirm that /script PetAbandon() doesnt work anymore for taming buffed pets?

[Skeeter]

anyone that has luck with the macro wanna try taming the Bullmastiffs in Western Plaguelands

They run and snatch a nearby fox in their mouth, ive been trying my macro, but im unlucky i guess, havent tamed the Lone Hunter or those mastiffs.

Not sure if it would work on those bullmastiffs though, the fox evenetually disappears from their mouths after a few seconds

[Cialbi]

Skeeter, someone's asked about that a while ago. Seems that it's pretty much impossible, since the fox is still an entirely separate object from the mastiff, like how the eggs on the Hillsbrad bears are completely separate objects from the bear.

[Acherontia]

Idd, the foxes are also a -timed- buff, even though there's none shown--they do disappear after a few seconds. In fact, if you kill the dog while he's holding a fox, the fox leaps down (or falls) & despawns.

[Skeeter]

ahh yea i figured as much, thought id mention it, just incase they may have gone unnoticed =p

o well, back to trying to tame the lone hunter before servers go down

**about 30 minutes, gotta start getting ready for work )=
Any tips on how to time the macro spam, it seems like im always doing it to late, even though i binded it to ever key on my keyboard, and my mousewheel, and the few rare times i think i tamed it fast enough, i was wrong )=

[yoru]

is this method work in patch 3.3.5 WOTLK?

[Acherontia]

Get off your private server -.-

[yoru]

dont have money and good connection to play in official server

thanx BTW

[Acherontia]

As a matter of interest, on the PTR, pets tamed like this seem to have non-interactive Pet Bars (as in, can't move pet abilities onto the pet bar).

This may however be down to Bartender addon, or other bugs (I could swear I heard someone else saying this about a normally-tamed pet, but I'm unsure).