WoW Petopia Community

The way the oil wolf was tamed previously was with a quest this new way is to abandon the pet after a tame so dont bring up they left it because they dident mind im talking about this new way and now the whole internet knows.

Er isn't the Warg STILL the quest only method? Alliance are the only one who can get the quest plonking them tamable for those few seconds to keep oily. Without that quest you'll just get a normal ugly looking Warg, no effects. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong tho, I have none high enough to mess with it as it is and things may have changed since.

Ariamodasu wrote:Er isn't the Warg STILL the quest only method? Alliance are the only one who can get the quest plonking them tamable for those few seconds to keep oily. Without that quest you'll just get a normal ugly looking Warg, no effects. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong tho, I have none high enough to mess with it as it is and things may have changed since.

Read my first post in this topic,

It keeps it visuals if it Vanishes at the same time when tame ends...

the quest made it dissapear., the quest was alliance only.
Killing and reviving also makes it dissapear, this is ofc not alliance only, and making a macro is something hordes should be able to manage

When I last asked you about oil stained critters, you said only Arena knocked it. And by Alliance only I think it was obvious I refered to the getting the quest it's self.

Cialbi wrote:Griffley, you'll be pleased to hear that the new taming craze you started is beginning to permeate into other forums. MMO-champ forums, and now the Wowhead hunter forum.

I noticed that a while back yes, I had a laugh beeing called a "Kreative Jäger" on some german forum.
i love silly languages xD

im straight off to seeing wether there are any cool tamebles I havent checked yet, in instances.
Have fun all

Aria: I do still believe only arena knocks the Oil, and - ok sorry if it was obvious.

Zwiggy wrote:The way the oil wolf was tamed previously was with a quest this new way is to abandon the pet after a tame so dont bring up they left it because they dident mind im talking about this new way and now the whole internet knows.

The Oil Wolf is BASICALLY THE SAME CONCEPT THO- you have to time the tame perfectly for the wolf to vanish as the tame finishes. This is no different from the revive and abandon macros being used. If those are exploits that are based off the same principle as the oil wolf, than obviously they are not as exploiting as you claim they are. The only true exploits are the DPS PET INCREASES. Why? Because you are glitching the game to give you something most other hunters can not have access too and no not a frivilous sparkly pet as not many of us are interested in frivilous sparkle, but a DPS increase!

So you can't claim the oil wolf is not an exploit when you are basically doing the same thing for it as we are doing for the, note, the NON DPS INCREASING PETS. We don't give a damn about permanent enrage effects, all the people posting here? Not one thought, I bet you, Hey I bet I could tame a pet and make it keep its wild enrage/dps increasing buff!



We want skins dear. We don't want DPS bonuses.

Griffley and Arch,

Outstanding job on finding this method and posting such a detailed guide. /salute and thank you!

Zeilla

And thank you Zeilla for that Oil wolf video I used from your youtube. In some way you started this xD Thats why you are in my first posts' credits.

Ryai wrote:

Zwiggy wrote:The way the oil wolf was tamed previously was with a quest this new way is to abandon the pet after a tame so dont bring up they left it because they dident mind im talking about this new way and now the whole internet knows.

The Oil Wolf is BASICALLY THE SAME CONCEPT THO- you have to time the tame perfectly for the wolf to vanish as the tame finishes. This is no different from the revive and abandon macros being used. If those are exploits that are based off the same principle as the oil wolf, than obviously they are not as exploiting as you claim they are. The only true exploits are the DPS PET INCREASES. Why? Because you are glitching the game to give you something most other hunters can not have access too and no not a frivilous sparkly pet as not many of us are interested in frivilous sparkle, but a DPS increase!

So you can't claim the oil wolf is not an exploit when you are basically doing the same thing for it as we are doing for the, note, the NON DPS INCREASING PETS. We don't give a damn about permanent enrage effects, all the people posting here? Not one thought, I bet you, Hey I bet I could tame a pet and make it keep its wild enrage/dps increasing buff!



We want skins dear. We don't want DPS bonuses.

You're making a lot of brash assumptions without any evidence to back them up. The first, as I've said numerous times, is your assumption that anyone who tames these pets has the intent to exploit them just because they can.
Your analogy about growing pot isn't quite relevant, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is 100% transferable as an argument.

I am a person who would grow pot in protest to the American government without smoking it. Personally, I hate the taste, however, I ardently believe leaving it illegalized is silly and without merit.

On a slightly different value in this circumstance, I go out to find abusable exploits because they fascinate me, not necessarily because my intention is to break the game. I just want to see what happens when the game is bent. Not get ahead of others.


The other assumption that you seem to make I can't figure out.
You think this isn't an exploit that you're abusing. If Blizzard intended the oil wolf to be an effect you keep, they would have made it tameable as such. There is currently a BUG in the system that allows the buff to remain. Abusing this BUG to gain a vanity pet is an EXPLOIT. It's not an exploit that gives you a tangible advantage, but neither would cheating for companion pets.
It's still unintended usage of a glitch in the system's mechanics, which, if abused, is known as an exploit.
That's what you're doing.

The outcome of the exploit is different, yes, but don't act so high and mighty that your feet aren't dirty.
A frivolous sparkle is most certainly an exploit as Garwahl was an exploit, as the ghost hydra and the slime were exploits. Unintentional bugs being intentionally utilized for something.

You really need to get your definitions straight.
And thanks, I know forums can't be "friendly," but gosh darn it all if Petopia didn't go out of its way to really tell me that this is a friendly place where intolerance of someone else wouldn't be accepted, especially when he didn't say or do anything wrong. He proved that something wrong COULD be done, which is perfectly acceptable.

You may not LIKE that he proved you could abuse the bug, and Blizzard may hotfix it in some way, but the fact is, someone would have found it. As I've said, long time member of an exploitation forum. They were already all over this.

(And as for me contradicting myself, the first and fourth points are different a la Blizzard banning a vanity user vs. Blizzard banning a DPS-buff user. Both are not likely to be banned given the very VERY minimal DPS increase, but the DPS-buffer is slightly more likely to have punitive action taken against his account.)

I want to say first of all to Zwiggy, I personally apologize for calling you a troll. But in my own defense at least, I perhaps misread or misinterpreted your posts. They did come across (to me) as...like trying to instigate something. Now that I see you were just testing to see if damage buffs remained the same as non-damage buffs, I apologize.

Taso, I appreciate that you were willing to read more into what Zwiggy was trying to say and clarified it for us. You spelled it out and it made sense when I read it. So again, I apologize for calling him a troll (some trolls are cute!...heh).

Try to understand that for the most part, we are cuddly bunnies. I think some of us were getting carried away with the fun and excitement of having pets with cool effects - exploit, glitch, or whatever, and didn't want that to be taken away with people using this to abuse it. So when Zwiggy came in here and started talking about this "impressive" damage buff, it was taken the wrong way and we panicked. Didn't want word of this getting out, so we (in general) tried to silence him (evil cackle). That was wrong.

Let's face it, we were already on a slippery slope with the revive method. We went from being able to tame one neat pet (the oiled wolf) to what...4 or 5 others in addition? And still, that was okay for the time being because it was limited. The only ones that could be tamed this way still had no damage buff, only visual effects (some buff-based, others not buff-based). It was when the abandon macro came into play that suddenly everything became possible, and things just went crazy from there.

Personally, I know this is an exploit. Not necessarily a malicious exploit, so Blizz was okay with it for a while. I don't feel it's any worse than other exploits people find (even seemingly minor things like wall-sticking to explore), and I don't think the players will be handled harshly for it. But, regardless of how we're doing the tames, they weren't intended to be tamed that way. I don't think that's really a question anymore. The question is now, what will Blizz do after this?

Seems to me that the real "threat" if you want to call it that, is the abandon macro. Prior to that, we were limited on what we could get. With the abandon macro, anything became possible. So in my opinion, I think the best action for Blizzard to take would be to either remove the buff-based "temp" pets (that can only be obtained via abandon macro), or remove their buffs, but leave the ones that can be obtained via other methods (the "permanent" pets) like the oiled wolf, oiled bird, flaming boar, glowing carrion bird, and Lone Hunter. These first few weren't a threat to the balance of the game, so I think Blizz would have been willing to leave them alone. Maybe I'm just hoping because I really like my boar, but I think solving the abandon issue would probably be in the best interest of Blizzard, and the players would still be able to get the other neat visual-effect pets.

But if it happens that any visual effect pet period gets removed, then so be it. It was fun while it lasted and at least I finally got a chance to get a "special" pet, since I missed out on GTSG, Gezzarak (at that time), Garwal, etc.

Rhyela, you just made my day =3

The fact that maturity does exist on the internet in such an open and honest form, even if a minority shares it, is a real sight to see.

On topic, I see Blizzard reacting in one of two ways now that this has become large-scale.
Those abusing DPS buffs will likely get a warning and the pet manually removed from their lineup and stable. Subsequently, one of those two changes will occur.

1. Pets will gain a check to lose buffs after being called.
2. The way that a pet is tamed will function a little differently, making it either much more or much less instantaneous when the timer hits 0.
In either scenario, the fix will be solely directed at the widespread availability of a bug. In this case, the abandon pet macro. Either fixing the way abandoning works or fixing the way taming works is how this is achieved.

If they fix abandoning, revive pet method will work and it will mean they won't bother removing the buffs(likely). Thus, we get to keep the 5(I think?) pets that are available through the revive pet method.

Alternatively, they could apply a sweeping fix to the buff problem, causing the only pets available through the revive pet or abandon pet methods to be those without buffs.
Flaming boar, Ghost Carrion, and the purple bear from Darkshore(I heard that was permanent in one of the threads. Not positive on this).

In any case, I wouldn't put much blame on Zwiggy at all. When it became known that you could petabandon to get a plague creature with the AoE buff, it was immediately posted somewhere else(won't say where) and the exploitation discussion started from there.

The fact that pets with enrages could also be tamed with this method is relatively inconsequential given the nature of those buffs and how long they last. Especially compared to the ever-lasting plague buff(provided the pet doesn't die).

I basically swear to anyone reading this that they will not ban you for taming any of these pets except MAYBE the ones with AoE damaging buffs, and even then, only if you actually abuse the buff to farm low leveled dungeons or what have you.

Blizzard's blanket buff fix would make the ones in our stables revert to normal depending on how they handled it. If the buff is fixed on tame/abandon, it would not be fixed for those who already have them. However, if they change it to an on-call check, then we lose them.

However, I would grab your boar and ghost carrion now, as those are the only ones I can say with fair certainty won't go away by Blizzard's hand.

On the other hand, Blizz has never been one to remove pets from the people who have already caught them. As such, they may simply fix the petabandon issue and let you keep what you got out of it, which is reasonable because they do not persist through death, so the problem would actually inevitably fix itself.



A final note I'd like to address to everyone who is not calling this an exploit.
If there were a way to obtain companion pets for free in large numbers without them counting towards the achievements/FoS, Blizzard would fix the bug.

The problem is not that you're necessarily exploiting the bug to be better off than anyone else, the problem is that it causes a disruptive element. Someone will think someone else is hacking and contact a GM. The GM will look into it and find that it's a bug. Because he received a complaint, he has a contractual obligation to either punish the offender or bring the bug to the attention of his superiors or both.

So no matter how long this lasted, it would have been axed at some point based purely on its scope.

No one cared about oil-wolf because it was JUST the oil wolf, which is already not that impressive. Furthermore, the actual method for taming it with the quest was quite difficult and a pain in the ass if I may say.

Blizzard cares about weighing the scope of an exploit versus its user-base.
If a bug allows someone to buy mounts for 1 copper and only 5 people found it, they probably won't give more than a warning to those people(if that) and fix the bug. However, they would fix it quickly if possible.
Alternatively, if a bug allows someone to get to Uldum and farm basic mobs for greens and mediocre Caty mats, Blizz's reaction will be based entirely on the number of people who use it. Uldum was farmable for about 2 weeks before it was finally fixed yesterday. Mostly because few people actually managed to take good advantage of the spot. Those people were not punished much if at all.
However, those who went INTO Hyjal mountains using an exploit often didn't get anything but flight points and achievements and were banned because such a vast number of people exploited this method.


This pet bug? Small scale for now. If they fix it quickly, there will be no punitive measures taken and we'll probably get to keep our fancy pets, or at least most of them.

I myself have the Fel Taint spider for its green mouth, the flaming boar, oil bird, oil wolf, head-injury-wolf, shadow-priest bird, ghost Carrion, and I'm headed for a ghost wolf today.

If I lose some of them, no big deal. If I get even one fascinating pet out of this, I'll consider myself having had a good round of it.

Lighten ye all up and don't be hard on anyone else. No one's at fault here. Blizzard just likes to patch holes when enough people are aware of them.

funny how this stuff goes around, I was surprised by some forums but this? :
http://www.inven.co.kr/board/powerbbs.p ... 49&l=31698

I want to add that when I thought about it, I'm actually glad Zwiggy said something about the damage buffs. He told us they exist, made it known that this could be abused. What if someone else who is not quite so open about their discoveries were to find one of these pets, then abuse it for a while? I think having this part of the tame kept secret and used maliciously would have been far worse than someone finding out and posting the discovery as a concern. The sooner action is taken, the better the results may turn out to be. If people started submitting GM tickets because they got their booty handed to them in BG's by a wasp with 200% attack speed, that's probably a lot worse than openly discussing it and submitting it on the official forums as a possible bug. Being open about it and taking the initiative to let Blizz know was the right thing to do.

I know we all want to keep our shiny pets, but at this time we have no reason to worry. The ball is in Blizz's court, so let's just chill and see what happens? I HIGHLY doubt anyone will be banned for this unless they intentionally use one of the damage buffed pets in a way that harms another player or gives them an excessive advantage in the game in some other way. I'm fairly certain no one here has done that, so don't worry.

I also want to throw in something... You can sit around all day and play semantics about what is an exploit and what an exploit is not.... but in the grand scheme of things using the guides that are here on these forums to tame these beasts were made to have a pet that looks different...

In my honest opinion, just having a pet that looks different is not an exploit and having someone else say it is an exploit is like a slap in the face. Using a different looking pet by taming with the technique does NOT make you any more stronger or superior to anyone with the same pet without the different look... hence... when it is taken this way it is not an exploit.

When you purposely go out and tame a beast that is using something (a buff) that makes him more powerful at the time just so you can have a pet that keeps the buff which DOES make you superior... and you do it knowingly... that IS an exploit.

I will argue that to Blizzard all day long if they want to argue with me, and the few people here who thinks that taming a beast in this manner to just get a cool look is an exploit... then shame on you. Learn what a true "exploit" is.

If using the PetAbandon() macro is an exploit then why has it been in the game for so long? And in case some of you have forgotten... on almost every single beast that this new procedure can be used on to tame a new skin ... can be done just by spamming/cramming on the Revive Pet skill too.... which is NOT a macro. Also, if you time it just right you don't even have to spam Revive Pet even... it could all just be done by luck.

The few pets that REQUIRE you to use the Abandon macro lose their uniqueness once they die anyway.

The easiest way this can be solved and let everyone keep doing it and keep their pets would be if Blizzard went back in and on every single beast in the game put a timer on each individual buff that could be exploited in this way.

On a completely related note... Blizzard said that the people taming the original Grimtotem Spirit Guide were being creative and figured out how to do it... did they call it an exploit then? Because if what we are doing now is an exploit... then so was the Grimtotem Wolf tame.

All (well most of it) of this can be done with just plain dumb luck, but because we know what beasts to look for and understand the concept of taming as it dies some of you are seeing it as bad... it isn't bad unless YOU make it bad.... and at that point it becomes an exploit.


That's the best I can do to show how I feel about the subject. You all can have quoting wars all day long and it will not change how I feel about the non-exploit vs. exploit argument.

I also want to apologize to whomever I may have offended in this thread (if it was even anyone). I did type things that maybe I should not have at the time.

I also want to clarify something... I will not grow pot just because the US Government is against me growing it... I won't grow it because Nancy Reagan told me it is bad, but if Nancy Reagan tells me I shouldn't have a Fiery Boar... then screw her!

The pet abandon script in itself isn't an exploit, obviously, using it to cheat the system can be considered one by Blizzard. Taming pets this way isn't like the Grimtotem Spirit, that just required stacking a ton of haste to beat the despawn timer so please stop using that as a counter.

What the pet abandon script does, as we all know, is abandon our pets without requiring a yes/no command prompt. With that said, using it to tame a beast goes against its inherent function as well as Blizzard's game design. Remember, this is there game. Yes, getting visually stunning pets doesn't harm anyone, but you have to remember that to do many of these tames, you are messing with their coding by either flooding the server with revive pet or the pet abandon macro. By doing this, you force the system to skip the cleansing process. It is a type of exploit, even though it's not malicious.

TygerDarkstorm wrote:The pet abandon script in itself isn't an exploit, obviously, using it to cheat the system can be considered one by Blizzard. Taming pets this way isn't like the Grimtotem Spirit, that just required stacking a ton of haste to beat the despawn timer so please stop using that as a counter.

What the pet abandon script does, as we all know, is abandon our pets without requiring a yes/no command prompt. With that said, using it to tame a beast goes against its inherent function as well as Blizzard's game design. Remember, this is there game. Yes, getting visually stunning pets doesn't harm anyone, but you have to remember that to do many of these tames, you are messing with their coding by either flooding the server with revive pet or the pet abandon macro. By doing this, you force the system to skip the cleansing process. It is a type of exploit, even though it's not malicious.

When taming a beast that Blizzard themselves said that was never meant to be tamed... (talking about the GTSW here) and stacking haste and getting others to come and help you do it... is NOT an exploit to me, but neither is using a macro (which DOES NOT have to even be used at all) to get a tame. You used what was at your disposal to tame the GTSW and had to do it just right or you didn't get it... how is that not different? Also, how is it not different if I have to add haste or remove gear to lower my haste in order to tame these new beast looks?

It's isn't HOW you tame it... it is WHY you tame it. If you tame a beast in a way that will make you superior in some way (and no, I am not talking about "my pet looks better than your pet" superiority) then it is an exploit.

And... if you reread what I typed... you can get almost every one of these new looks WITHOUT USING the Abandon pet macro... and if you find the sweet spot it CAN be done without cramming on Revive Pet.

If you want to call it an exploit... fine. But when I can go out and do it without doing ANYTHING special other than hitting Tame Beast at the right time... I am not sure how you can even remotely think it is an exploit when all I am after is the look and not a buff.

If you want to keep bringing up the script on pet abandonment... then how about bringing up all of the other scripts that are in the game that does stuff for you...or all of the add-ons that use scripts to make things easier via macros?

I stand by what I said... it's only an exploit if you do it to gain an advantage, IMO.

I find it funny that when people start talking about specific pets (GTSW, etc...) then everyone is a critic... and they want you to know it isn't the same thing.



edit: Let me rephrase something... when people say "exploit" it is normally in a way to say something was done that was wrong or "bad" in some way. It is possible for there to be good "exploits", so maybe instead of calling the specific taming of certain beast skins just for their looks an exploit... maybe we can call it something else.... like Buttery-Pancake Goodness or something.

While calling taming the beasts for their increase damage buffs (enhancement buffs, etc...etc... etc...) a "Low Down Dirty Rotten" exploit.

I think doing this will make everyone happy.

...and then again I never promised World Peace.

Yeah.... You could get GTSW through legitimate means. But it was still unintended.
You can't get any of these pets without doing something ALSO unintended.

To use an earlier analogy, growing weed is illegal no matter why you do it or how you do it.

An exploit is not a valued thing, quit trying to make it one.

The intentional utilization of a bug is an exploitation. Exploitations can be perfectly "good" or "evil" based on how you use them, though "evil" is a ridiculously over-charged term.

You can have an opinion about the term "exploit," but you're not right.

Blizzard's ToS, Section 7, subsection C, item i: "(i) Using or exploiting errors in design, features which have not been documented, and/or "program bugs" to gain access that is otherwise not available, or to obtain a competitive advantage over other players;"

These pets are otherwise unavailable as we have caught them. It is an error in design that is utilized to get them with their effect.
It makes a distinction between that and the competitive advantage gained through exploitation.

If you're going to harp about a definition, back it up with Blizzard's resources.

Taso wrote:Yeah.... You could get GTSW through legitimate means. But it was still unintended.
You can't get any of these pets without doing something ALSO unintended.

To use an earlier analogy, growing weed is illegal no matter why you do it or how you do it.

An exploit is not a valued thing, quit trying to make it one.

The intentional utilization of a bug is an exploitation. Exploitations can be perfectly "good" or "evil" based on how you use them, though "evil" is a ridiculously over-charged term.

You can have an opinion about the term "exploit," but you're not right.

Blizzard's ToS, Section 7, subsection C, item i: "(i) Using or exploiting errors in design, features which have not been documented, and/or "program bugs" to gain access that is otherwise not available, or to obtain a competitive advantage over other players;"

These pets are otherwise unavailable as we have caught them. It is an error in design that is utilized to get them with their effect.
It makes a distinction between that and the competitive advantage gained through exploitation.

If you're going to harp about a definition, back it up with Blizzard's resources.

and our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms but you dont see me walking around with a bear's arm.

stop looking for the literal. the main point in that ToS is using an exploit that gives you a competitive advantage. These pets are nothing but cosmetic and therefore there is little to no chance that anyone will get banned. worst thing that will happen is they take away our pets. Blizzard has shown mercy through MUCH worse

Excuse me?

I just gave you an exact quote of Blizzard's terms of service which do NOT solely target the bugs that give you a competitive edge!

Don't just hear what you want to hear.

Taso wrote:Excuse me?

I just gave you an exact quote of Blizzard's terms of service which do NOT solely target the bugs that give you a competitive edge!

Don't just hear what you want to hear.

you can quote all you want because results>quotes every time.

By the word for word meaning of your ToS quote, every little exploit would result in hundreds of bans. The Hadronax rep farming exploit would have resulted in hundreds of bans. the Hydralisk exploit would have resulted in hundreds of bans. the Isle of Conquest bug would have resulted in hundreds of bans. But NONE of them resulted in any bans whatsoever. And why did they not result in bans? because Blizzard employees aren't the cruel vendetta seeking ban hammers you seem to think they are. There is a line that must be drawn when enforcing the ToS and they know where that line is, above cosmetic exploits and below competitive advantage exploits.