Page 3 of 4
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:41 pm
by zedxrgal
Bulletdance wrote:I like to think I have a sense of humor. I giggle when someone says "ass", sure I'll even laugh at myself a lot,but I'm not finding this funny. Its insulting your customers. Its the same rudeness and lack of respect I encountered when speaking with Blizz employees about the worgen pet. I'm starting to really wonder how they stay in business and why I am paying them at all.
"Harhar hunters want this pet...lets make the mob say they can't have it" Really Blizz? Thanks. ...how much you want a month again?
This. 100 Times this.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:18 am
by Wain
Meh, I found their naming to be more of a good-natured nod to people who found a loophole to tame something that Blizzard obviously didn't intend to be tamed, or at least isn't ready to be tamed yet (nobody actually knows what Blizzard's intentions are with all these new colossi yet). People get a little worked up over these things, as if it's personal. If not being able to tame one weird bug model ruins it for you, over the enormous volume of strange and wonderful creatures which CAN be tamed, or if you take personally a joke aimed at something that you aren't even responsible for discovering, then I support your decision to re-evaluate your subscription.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:36 am
by Nevar
I think its kinda funny, I mean its clear they werent ever meant to be tameable but people found a way around it and had them anyways. Its blizz's way of saying haha we found you out - not like we should have figured otherwise though. There are things like ghost hydra's an actual beast...and then theres a giant bug and a worgan pet..both never should have been pets but fun while they lasted.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 5:58 am
by Curumor
Wain wrote:Meh, I found their naming to be more of a good-natured nod to people who found a loophole to tame something that Blizzard obviously didn't intend to be tamed, or at least isn't ready to be tamed yet (nobody actually knows what Blizzard's intentions are with all these new colossi yet). People get a little worked up over these things, as if it's personal. If not being able to tame one weird bug model ruins it for you, over the enormous volume of strange and wonderful creatures which CAN be tamed, or if you take personally a joke aimed at something that you aren't even responsible for discovering, then I support your decision to re-evaluate your subscription.
^That.
It's just a friendly poke at people who tried to go around the lines to get a pet they're probably not supposed to have. A sort of "Nice try, guys, but sorry. Not gonna happen
".
It shows Blizz are listening, even if they don't agree to every request. I much prefer it over them just fixing it without any acknowledgement.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:10 am
by Worba
Victorelle wrote:lol I think someone already found this out but the big bug is gone and know hes name was also changed
Ha ha Blizz veerrrry funny.
Can't say this comes as a surprise though - I think Garwal pretty much marked the end of their "let it slide" approach to unintended hunter pets.
I'm just glad I didn't abandon any pets to make room for these guys.
Anyone know if Grunter is still tameable?
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:24 am
by Mindsprocket
Curumor wrote: It's just a friendly poke at people who tried to go around the lines to get a pet they're probably not supposed to have. A sort of "Nice try, guys, but sorry. Not gonna happen
".
It shows Blizz are listening, even if they don't agree to every request. I much prefer it over them just fixing it without any acknowledgement.
I agree with this. And you can't really blame Blizzard for being a bit snarky here. Afterall, the players tried to trick them, what with the "keep it quiet so that Blizz can't fix something that's obviously unintentional". Even though especially beta testers are supposted to point bugs out to them. That wasn't the nicest way to treat Blizzard now, was it?
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:35 pm
by Darknez
Spose they couldn't call one after me
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:38 pm
by Bulletdance
Wain wrote:Meh, I found their naming to be more of a good-natured nod to people who found a loophole to tame something that Blizzard obviously didn't intend to be tamed, or at least isn't ready to be tamed yet (nobody actually knows what Blizzard's intentions are with all these new colossi yet). People get a little worked up over these things, as if it's personal. If not being able to tame one weird bug model ruins it for you, over the enormous volume of strange and wonderful creatures which CAN be tamed, or if you take personally a joke aimed at something that you aren't even responsible for discovering, then I support your decision to re-evaluate your subscription.
I never claimed to be responsible for discovering it or that it ruins anything else for me. I think its bad marketing thats all. I just happen to know of a lot of hunters who took a lot of their time to try and figure the whole thing out, some abandoned spirit beasts to try for the brain bug. I just think its a bit rude to turn around and do something like this. Its fine if it was meant to be unnameable(personally i hate bugs anyway i cant even have a normal silithid)but there are better ways to run a business other than finding out something people want and being rude about not offering it. The point is it meant something to some hunters and I don't feel this is considerate of their feelings.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:00 pm
by cowmuflage
well NOONE asked those hunters to get rid of there spirit beasts now did thay lol. I don't think its rude at all anyone who comp-lains about blizz makeing them dicth one of there pets is a dumb person imo not you but anyone who did and then got angry as we ALL knew it was a bug lol.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:13 pm
by zedxrgal
cowmuflage wrote:well NOONE asked those hunters to get rid of there spirit beasts now did thay lol. I don't think its rude at all anyone who comp-lains about blizz makeing them dicth one of there pets is a dumb person imo not you but anyone who did and then got angry as we ALL knew it was a bug lol.
No need to go around calling anyone dumb. That is being rude.
I still feel it's a bit of a smack in the face. I'm not taking it personally. Just that it's like them almost poking fun at the efforts made to have something new - different. Whether it was unintentional or not for the big bugs to be pets there was no need to name it like that. I'm sure people got the point the first time when the pet was removed from them.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:30 pm
by Kalliope
zedxrgal wrote:cowmuflage wrote:well NOONE asked those hunters to get rid of there spirit beasts now did thay lol. I don't think its rude at all anyone who comp-lains about blizz makeing them dicth one of there pets is a dumb person imo not you but anyone who did and then got angry as we ALL knew it was a bug lol.
No need to go around calling anyone dumb. That is being rude.
Seconded. Plus, some of the hunters who did it WERE TESTING THAT THIS WAS POSSIBLE ON THE BETA. To call THAT dumb is to be incredibly ungrateful for their sacrifices in the name of hunterly curiosity.
This offends me more than Blizzard making them untamable.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:31 pm
by cowmuflage
just proveing my point when i said dumb
(most of those hunters where NOT in beta they just wanted a unatainable pet and so let go of there pets not to help anyone else but them selves then they complain to blizz about blizz being the greedy ones? thats being silly.) every one was going on about blizz being rude when they were not and stufff lol. Blizz can name there mobs what ever they want who are we do judge what they can and can't do? we after all were exploting a bug and thats a nono.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:33 pm
by Saturo
You don't get it, Cowmu. Read their posts again.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:34 pm
by cowmuflage
oh no i do get it. was just saying why i said it. allso I was talking about the hunters who where not in beta just the ones who got rid of pets soley so they could have a pet noone else could.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 4:30 pm
by Renle
Can't say this comes as a surprise though - I think Garwal pretty much marked the end of their "let it slide" approach to unintended hunter pets.
I don't think so, with Garwal, it's pretty obvious, and has been stated already why this was removed for those hunters who already had him. Wargen were planned to be the new playable race, and it's just strange to have a hunter running around with a member of the alliance as a 'pet'.
Also, I think sentience has something to do with it. I know people have tried to use raptors as an example of a 'sentient' beast that hunter can tame, but at the same time, raptors only seem to be partially sentient really, and still very much bestial. Same with the silthid pets. Sure there are silthids that are very obviously sentient and humanoid in their intelligence, but the tameable variety all seem to be MUCH less intelligent, and more hive minded.
So I think the real reason bliz took this away (besides the awkward sizing problems that they didn't want to fix) is that there might be a quest, or story painting these silthid with human-like intelligence. And it would make the lore hounds stop and scratch their heads if they saw a hunter running around with one as a slave-pet ;P
Anyways. I myself went out to tame one of the rares in hopes of getting one in cata, but I haven't gotten my panties in a bunch over the new names either. I thought it was giggle-rific, and if Ainimiss really is a nod towards Mania, I think they should just call it Mania and be more straight forward about it. It would make a wonderful nod to the hunter community and fit in well with many of the other npc's put in as homage to various other WoW celebrities ^_~
Oh look, this is longer then I intended....
tl;dr: Not a big deal they took it out. Prolly a very good reason for it. Funny names are funny.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 5:37 pm
by Wassa
Ok, saying this was a "slap in the face" to us hunters was exaggerated on my part. It's more like an inside joke Blizzard made to us hunters that's a bit mean. I still think the names are hilarious.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:00 pm
by Worba
Renle wrote:Can't say this comes as a surprise though - I think Garwal pretty much marked the end of their "let it slide" approach to unintended hunter pets.
I don't think so, with Garwal, it's pretty obvious, and has been stated already why this was removed for those hunters who already had him. Wargen were planned to be the new playable race, and it's just strange to have a hunter running around with a member of the alliance as a 'pet'.
Also, I think sentience has something to do with it. I know people have tried to use raptors as an example of a 'sentient' beast that hunter can tame, but at the same time, raptors only seem to be partially sentient really, and still very much bestial. Same with the silthid pets. Sure there are silthids that are very obviously sentient and humanoid in their intelligence, but the tameable variety all seem to be MUCH less intelligent, and more hive minded.
So I think the real reason bliz took this away (besides the awkward sizing problems that they didn't want to fix) is that there might be a quest, or story painting these silthid with human-like intelligence. And it would make the lore hounds stop and scratch their heads if they saw a hunter running around with one as a slave-pet
Unintended pet is unintended pet, 'nuff said.
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:59 am
by Darknez
There have been a number of unintended pets that remained in game though - it does seem to be a one rule for some, and one rule for others policy. Maybe depending on the size of the pet!
Ghost Wolves & Gezzarak wern't massive but the brain bugs are!
(Sapphire Hive Queen is excluded for as long as she remains tameable)
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:17 am
by Ryno
Boo, disappointed Ryno is disappointed. But Blizzard delivered it in the best possible way, really. Quite under the radar for anyone who didn't already know, but definitely noticeable to those that knew.
And it seems I have two hunters that now have two stable slots to refill... gooooodbye weekend...
Re: HaraKiss the UNTAMABLE
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:17 am
by Worba
Darknez wrote:There have been a number of unintended pets that remained in game though - it does seem to be a one rule for some, and one rule for others policy. Maybe depending on the size of the pet!
Ghost Wolves & Gezzarak wern't massive but the brain bugs are!
(Sapphire Hive Queen is excluded for as long as she remains tameable)
I know - was talking about a change in policy
starting with Garwal - spirit guides/crocoslimes etc were grandfathered in.
Might be wrong, and I'm sure I'll keep on making a beeline for anything even suspected to be an unintended pet (hope springs eternal)... but so far at least it does appear as though Blizzard won't be letting us get away with anything.