How To: Tame Pets With Appearance Buffs

[Rikaku]

Rikaku, our whole disagreement boils down to this:

You believe sparkle pets are buffed and that as of the blue post and hotfix, they're not to be tamed.
Appearance effect = Buff.

I believe they're merely appearance changed, retain no true buffs after taming, and that they're still fair game.
Appearance effect =/= Buff.

That's not the main part of what I posted before you at all. That's a small part of it in regards to the buff/not a buff issue, but like I said, what we think is irrelevant to the fact that Blizzard didn't want Hunters to get those pets. So they hotfixed the method to obtain those pets. But now people are finding other ways to break the rules that Blizzard set aside.

That was the beef of my post, not the "what's a buff" part. My issue is with Hunters circumventing what Blizzard obviously didn't want Hunters to do, and then showing ways to do it on a forum which is basically encouraging others to follow suit.

If it was an exploit the first time, what makes it *not* an exploit the second time when you guys know Blizzard doesn't want you to tame pets that look like that?

That's the beef of the argument. That's why i decided to post in the thread and I continue to do so. Other people also agree with me that obviously it isn't something that seems 'right' to do now that it's post-hotfix. So really, whether you think it's not a buff and if I think it is a buff doesn't matter, the point that I (and others) have been trying to make is that this is really breaking the rules and that those who decide to circumvent Blizzard's obvious disapproval run at their own risk of punishment. That's all.

[Agravaine]

That's not the main part of what I posted before you at all. That's a small part of it in regards to the buff/not a buff issue, but like I said, what we think is irrelevant to the fact that Blizzard didn't want Hunters to get those pets. So they hotfixed the method to obtain those pets. But now people are finding other ways to break the rules that Blizzard set aside.

That was the beef of my post, not the "what's a buff" part. My issue is with Hunters circumventing what Blizzard obviously didn't want Hunters to do, and then showing ways to do it on a forum which is basically encouraging others to follow suit.

If it was an exploit the first time, what makes it *not* an exploit the second time when you guys know Blizzard doesn't want you to tame pets that look like that?

That's the beef of the argument. That's why i decided to post in the thread and I continue to do so. Other people also agree with me that obviously it isn't something that seems 'right' to do now that it's post-hotfix. So really, whether you think it's not a buff and if I think it is a buff doesn't matter, the point that I (and others) have been trying to make is that this is really breaking the rules and that those who decide to circumvent Blizzard's obvious disapproval run at their own risk of punishment. That's all.

Logically it does matter because the blue post explicitly says "buffs". Show me where it says "apperance". Not a buff = not covered by that post, not included in the pets "Blizzard doesn't want you to tame that look like that". Looks don't matter, it's buffs that do.

I also do not agree that the taming method is an exploit, or they would have removed the ability to script petAbandon in a macro altogether, or at least modified it to the point that it could not be spammed. The only point where this breaks any rules is where it is used to tame a pet that has a buff that provides an unfair advantage.

The language of the blue post is very clear. It is no longer possible to tame pets and keep the buffs they had before the tame. Not "We've made it very difficult, but you may find workarounds and exploits that will still allow you to get them", NOT POSSIBLE. Damage buffed pets: good riddance. Unique appearance pets: still relatively easy to tame.

By all means, please continue to post. I do value your opinion even though I may not agree with it. If you're right, I've really dug myself into a hole. I've put myself on record in a forum known to be monitored by Blizzard as having tamed a pet I shouldn't have after they announced it was hotfixed, and am actively encouraging and helping those who want them to go get them.

[Slickrock]

Well, my view of it is like this..

Since I have a burning boar already, and the oiled hawk, there are none of the others out there that I would want to risk a 3-day ban on. I doubt you would get a perma-ban for this, but still, there's none of them that are that exciting to make the risk worthwhile.

[Cialbi]

The fact that the PetAbandon script still works means that Blizzard feels we should be able to abandon our pets instantly by using a macro if we so choose. PetAbandon was never intended to make the pet merely despawn instead of being abandoned altogether. That is a glitch. They clearly tried to fix the glitch, but were not entirely successful. IMO, if Blizzard sincerely tries to fix a glitch in the game, then they clearly do not want that glitch to be exploited by players. I don't care whether this affects buffs, appearance changes, or what-have-you; if the method involves exploiting a glitch that Blizzard is attempting to remove, then I do not see how the method is justifiable. This doesn't mean that I believe that those who continue to exploit this particular glitch will be banned, nor do I expect that Blizzard will that course of action. Merely, I am asserting that we need to be aware that there is a line in the sand as to what Blizzard will or will not allow, and that playing on the wrong side of the line could provoke Blizzard into taking disciplinary action (The ToS and EULA are pretty clear that our Battle.net accounts are at the mercy of Blizzard). If you do choose to cross that figurative line, be careful to not wander too far.

I personally have decided to not even attempt this method anymore since the subject was addressed by a blue post and a hotfix implemented. I have made aware those who I previously told about the exploit that Bizzard is fixing it now, and am pointing out that this probably indicates that Blizzard does not wish us to use the exploit anymore. Beyond that, I won't make others' decisions for them. I simply ask that this method no longer be promoted.

[Feydrinne]

Hmmmm I think there are merits to both sides of the argument, really. Blizz tends to not want the playerbase to do certain things and will take away those buggy privileges as they see fit for whatever reason. My perception on the issue is that Blizzard at their core (again this is purely my own personal speculation) isn't against the appearance buffs per se but against the buffs that alter gameplay, i.e. the buffs that convey notable advantages/disadvantages to the playerbase. The means by which they addressed the issue quickly I think alludes to that ideal in a way: Cataclysm just rolled out, their help system is slogged, they don't have time to nitpick every non-affecting buff vs. purely appearance oriented ones so they'll hotfix them all to be non-tameable. Note that they did not remove any buffs from already-tamed pets, which I'm assuming they could easily do server-side by having code put in place to erase all buffs on pets in stables... but they don't, we've retained all of our pets with buffs and have no had them wiped.

Case in point, my bat that has the lifedrain buff on it, got it when I first learned of the macro and wanted to test it out...if I were on a PVP server that buff would certainly help me play at an advantage over a duplicate player with the same bat but sans buff, or even playing purely on a PVE realm to get through content faster. But as such I've kept him put away in my stable, just to have along with my Ghostpaw Runner in spiritwolf form, and the fact that I retain both pets in their buff-retaining form I think alludes to the fact that Blizzard doesn't really mind the appearance buffs but has given us a message regarding the play-altering buffs being a no-no to try to acquire. The hotfix was simply a quick way to attempt to nip that in the bud right now.

I have a lot of assumptions and there's a saying that goes with "assume"-ing But to me that's the perceptual message that I've received from them. I don't think the buffs are bad per se in the eyes of Blizzard in so long as they don't convey advantages to players. I guess we'll see in the coming weeks how they officially deal with it, heh.

[Anyia]

The fact that the PetAbandon script still works means that Blizzard feels we should be able to abandon our pets instantly by using a macro if we so choose.

As the resident addon maker I feel I should interject at this point. PetAbandon() isn't something that exists purely to be used from clever macros. It is in fact part of the interface exposed to all user interface code (including the default Blizzard UI) for use to unconditionally abandon a pet. When you right-click your pet's unit frame and click "Abandon", the user interface code first puts up a "Are you really sure you want to do this?" window. If you click "Yes", then the user interface calls PetAbandon() on your behalf, exactly the same as if you had used /run PetAbandon() from a macro.

The PetAbandon() function is highly unlikely to ever disappear, precisely because it is the only mechanic available for the user interface to instruct the game to abandon a pet. What could happen is that it could be flagged as "protected" meaning that only Blizzard's user interface code would be allowed to call it, which as a side-effect would prevent it from being used in macros. I sincerely hope they don't have to resort to that though, as it would quite likely break many custom UIs.

PetAbandon was never intended to make the pet merely despawn instead of being abandoned altogether. That is a glitch. They clearly tried to fix the glitch, but were not entirely successful.

Agreed. In my (hopefully educated) opinion any and all fixes to this issue will happen "behind the scenes". At the core of the problem there seems to be a timing issue between multiple actions (recording the hunter's newly tamed pet in the database, instructing the game to despawn the pet, and recording the removal of the hunter's current pet from the database). With the PetAbandon() taming trick it was possible to have actions #2 and #3 happen before #1, thus giving us sparkle-pets (yay!). Speaking from experience, timing related bugs can be a royal pain to resolve correctly, and I'm not surprised to see the first hot-fix not fully resolving the issue. I imagine there will be a more comprehensive fix coming in the future.

What I'm hoping is that Blizz will see it as an opportunity to not only fix the issue of unintentional damage-buffed pets but also at the same time officially support keeping visual effects on pets. I suspect the proper fix for the core issue will actually enable Blizz-approved effects on pets. The usual disclaimer of me not working for Blizzard nor knowing anyone who does, or what they might be thinking does apply however.

[Lisaara]

I personally have decided to not even attempt this method anymore since the subject was addressed by a blue post and a hotfix implemented. I have made aware those who I previously told about the exploit that Bizzard is fixing it now, and am pointing out that this probably indicates that Blizzard does not wish us to use the exploit anymore. Beyond that, I won't make others' decisions for them. I simply ask that this method no longer be promoted.

This ^

I'm actually amazed this thread wasn't locked because I've felt having this open could get Petopia into trouble. No offense to its maker and i know it wasnt their intention but this thread is what brought the trolls from MMOChamp here as it was linked directly.

[Agravaine]

The fact that the PetAbandon script still works means that Blizzard feels we should be able to abandon our pets instantly by using a macro if we so choose.

As the resident addon maker I feel I should interject at this point. PetAbandon() isn't something that exists purely to be used from clever macros. It is in fact part of the interface exposed to all user interface code (including the default Blizzard UI) for use to unconditionally abandon a pet. When you right-click your pet's unit frame and click "Abandon", the user interface code first puts up a "Are you really sure you want to do this?" window. If you click "Yes", then the user interface calls PetAbandon() on your behalf, exactly the same as if you had used /run PetAbandon() from a macro.

The PetAbandon() function is highly unlikely to ever disappear, precisely because it is the only mechanic available for the user interface to instruct the game to abandon a pet. What could happen is that it could be flagged as "protected" meaning that only Blizzard's user interface code would be allowed to call it, which as a side-effect would prevent it from being used in macros. I sincerely hope they don't have to resort to that though, as it would quite likely break many custom UIs.

PetAbandon was never intended to make the pet merely despawn instead of being abandoned altogether. That is a glitch. They clearly tried to fix the glitch, but were not entirely successful.

Agreed. In my (hopefully educated) opinion any and all fixes to this issue will happen "behind the scenes". At the core of the problem there seems to be a timing issue between multiple actions (recording the hunter's newly tamed pet in the database, instructing the game to despawn the pet, and recording the removal of the hunter's current pet from the database). With the PetAbandon() taming trick it was possible to have actions #2 and #3 happen before #1, thus giving us sparkle-pets (yay!). Speaking from experience, timing related bugs can be a royal pain to resolve correctly, and I'm not surprised to see the first hot-fix not fully resolving the issue. I imagine there will be a more comprehensive fix coming in the future.

What I'm hoping is that Blizz will see it as an opportunity to not only fix the issue of unintentional damage-buffed pets but also at the same time officially support keeping visual effects on pets. I suspect the proper fix for the core issue will actually enable Blizz-approved effects on pets. The usual disclaimer of me not working for Blizzard nor knowing anyone who does, or what they might be thinking does apply however.

Wow, that certainly clarifies a lot. I did wonder about the macroed petAbandon not performing confirmation. Now that I know it was glitching the proper sequence of a pet abandon it certainly feels dodgy now. Rikaku's right.

Do you remember the smart pet attack macro Barticus posted on the original hunter forums in vanilla? It used if statements to check if there was an enemy rogue in the area, mark it, and have your pet attack it. Otherwise it would go after your original target. When they changed the API some of the code elements for that did get protected. So it might happen.

I'm completely with you on your last paragraph, and I hope that they're still monitoring. The fact that they let us keep Gezzarak in early LK and the Grimtotem Spirit Guide (if we were fortunate enough to get them when it was possible) is encouraging.

[TygerDarkstorm]

Knowing Blizzard, they'll grandfather the existing pets; that's just too many hunters to search through and find potential buff pets. However, they've made it pretty clear that they don't want us taming new versions of these pets and further going around their coding, which is what these methods are doing. If the pets were meant to stay sparkly, they would.

[Agravaine]

Mine do.

[TygerDarkstorm]

Only because you exploit tamed them. Without the exploit, the pets aren't meant to be that way, which is obviously Blizzard's intention or pets would never go through a cleansing process.

[Agravaine]

And again, exploit or not, I have no remorse about taming appearance pets because appearance is not a buff. They can cleanse away if they like, they can clarify and bannify, but until then, I'll stand on this.

Edit: if this sounds like a turnaround, it's not. I did say Rikaku was right -- I was referring to this:

My problem lies in the *method* of how people are obtaining them, NOT the pet themselves. I have never had an issue with sparkle pets, and I've always been a supporter of interesting pet tames like the ghost wolf. However, personally, I've felt the ways presented in this thread were exploiting, and I chose to not participate in taming these pets. But I am quite pleased that my fellow Hunters who did managed to keep their pets. I am in no way against the pets themselves. I have just had issues with the first method (which is now hotfixed) and this new method to circumvent the hotfix.

The hotfix was implemented to prevent the taming of damage buffed pets, not sparkle pets. The two are distinct.

[Cialbi]

The fact that the PetAbandon script still works means that Blizzard feels we should be able to abandon our pets instantly by using a macro if we so choose.

As the resident addon maker I feel I should interject at this point. PetAbandon() isn't something that exists purely to be used from clever macros. It is in fact part of the interface exposed to all user interface code (including the default Blizzard UI) for use to unconditionally abandon a pet. When you right-click your pet's unit frame and click "Abandon", the user interface code first puts up a "Are you really sure you want to do this?" window. If you click "Yes", then the user interface calls PetAbandon() on your behalf, exactly the same as if you had used /run PetAbandon() from a macro.

The PetAbandon() function is highly unlikely to ever disappear, precisely because it is the only mechanic available for the user interface to instruct the game to abandon a pet. What could happen is that it could be flagged as "protected" meaning that only Blizzard's user interface code would be allowed to call it, which as a side-effect would prevent it from being used in macros. I sincerely hope they don't have to resort to that though, as it would quite likely break many custom UIs.

Thank you for the clarification, since I was completely unaware of this

[Lisaara]

The hotfix was implemented to prevent the taming of damage buffed pets, not sparkle pets. The two are distinct.

I'm just gonna say this...

If it's got a box on it when you click on it like with the oil-stain...it's technically considered a buff/de-buff. So damaging or not, Blizzard said no. The hotfix was meant for all of it.

That is all.

[Cialbi]

I personally have decided to not even attempt this method anymore since the subject was addressed by a blue post and a hotfix implemented. I have made aware those who I previously told about the exploit that Bizzard is fixing it now, and am pointing out that this probably indicates that Blizzard does not wish us to use the exploit anymore. Beyond that, I won't make others' decisions for them. I simply ask that this method no longer be promoted.

This ^

I'm actually amazed this thread wasn't locked because I've felt having this open could get Petopia into trouble. No offense to its maker and i know it wasnt their intention but this thread is what brought the trolls from MMOChamp here as it was linked directly.

I feel that I should point out that I myself have successfully tamed a consumed bear and oiled fledgling before Blizzard had decided to take any action, and didn't care to tame an oiled worg or burning boar. Thus, I am not speaking from the position of someone who missed out on the initial opportunity, but is seeing a glimmer of hope in possibly being able to pull off one of these tames before this gets fixed completely. Knowing me, my opinion would be heavily biased otherwise since I can be a hypocritical bastard in such situations

[Lisaara]

I personally have decided to not even attempt this method anymore since the subject was addressed by a blue post and a hotfix implemented. I have made aware those who I previously told about the exploit that Bizzard is fixing it now, and am pointing out that this probably indicates that Blizzard does not wish us to use the exploit anymore. Beyond that, I won't make others' decisions for them. I simply ask that this method no longer be promoted.

This ^

I'm actually amazed this thread wasn't locked because I've felt having this open could get Petopia into trouble. No offense to its maker and i know it wasnt their intention but this thread is what brought the trolls from MMOChamp here as it was linked directly.

I feel that I should point out that I myself have successfully tamed a consumed bear and oiled fledgling before Blizzard had decided to take any action, and didn't care to tame an oiled worg or burning boar. Thus, I am not speaking from the position of someone who missed out on the initial opportunity, but is seeing a glimmer of hope in possibly being able to pull off one of these tames before this gets fixed completely. Knowing me, my opinion would be heavily biased otherwise since I can be a hypocritical bastard in such situations

I've tamed the worg back before Blizzard specifically say "This isnt allowed" too. Blizzard shut out any hope when they told us No. The fact people want to keep pushing Blizzard's buttons despite they said No kind of bothers me. It's like they're waving a big neon pink flag that says "Hey I dont care you told me no! i'm gonna do it anyway!". It saddens me. I thought better of some.

[Agravaine]

The hotfix was implemented to prevent the taming of damage buffed pets, not sparkle pets. The two are distinct.

I'm just gonna say this...

If it's got a box on it when you click on it like with the oil-stain...it's technically considered a buff/de-buff. So damaging or not, Blizzard said no. The hotfix was meant for all of it.

That is all.

I disagree.

[Acherontia]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't gotten more heated than it has, especially with strong (moral!) feeling on both sides. Thanks for not filling it with negativity or letting it degrade; as it stands it's a good discussion.

I'm not sure where I stand. I won't be taming any of them myself, but that's at least partially because I got the one(s) I wanted before the hotfix. If I happened upon this thread now, after the hotfix, and knowing the method still works, I'd be 50-50 and have to give it a long think before deciding either way..

The only reason I popped in with a "yeah, there is a way to get around this still" confirmation to the post was because there were a couple people who had come in to the game late and expressed disappointment about missing the window of opportunity!

If any last-minute desperados really wanted a buffpet, now's the time!

<--That's what I said at the time.

Personally though, I will say two things:

* There are multiple definitions of the word "buff." There's a reason that transformations are called "appearance buffs," and something doesn't need to have an icon to be one--in fact, some of the sparkly pets have visible buffs on their unitframe, and some don't ("Ghost Form," "Oil-coated" vs Icepaw Bears etc). Arguing over which Blizz meant (EVERY buff vs COMBAT buff) is, in the end, pointless, as we simply don't know from this side of the blue door.

* Regardless, we don't have a green light, and using a game command to bypass coding that Blizzard MIGHT be trying to strengthen is still iffy at best, post-hotfix. Therefore I wouldn't go around recommending it or spreading the info elsewhere; leave it as-is, and if people want to try it KNOWING the issue, they can do so at their own risk.

(Edit: updated the OP with a warning, since the info about it having been hotfixed is clearly void >.<)

[Lisaara]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't gotten more heated than it has, especially with strong (moral!) feeling on both sides. Thanks for not filling it with negativity or letting it degrade; as it stands it's a good discussion.

I'm not sure where I stand. I won't be taming any of them myself, but that's at least partially because I got the one(s) I wanted before the hotfix. If I happened upon this thread now, after the hotfix, and knowing the method still works, I'd be 50-50 and have to give it a long think before deciding either way..

The only reason I popped in with a "yeah, there is a way to get around this still" confirmation to the post was because there were a couple people who had come in to the game late and expressed disappointment about missing the window of opportunity!

If any last-minute desperados really wanted a buffpet, now's the time!

<--That's what I said at the time.

Personally though, I will say two things:

* There are multiple definitions of the word "buff." There's a reason that transformations are called "appearance buffs," and something doesn't need to have an icon to be one--in fact, some of the sparkly pets have visible buffs on their unitframe, and some don't ("Ghost Form," "Oil-coated" vs Icepaw Bears etc). Arguing over which Blizz meant (EVERY buff vs COMBAT buff) is, in the end, pointless, as we simply don't know from this side of the blue door.

* Regardless, we don't have a green light, and using a game command to bypass coding that Blizzard MIGHT be trying to strengthen is still iffy at best, post-hotfix. Therefore I wouldn't go around recommending it or spreading the info elsewhere; leave it as-is, and if people want to try it KNOWING the issue, they can do so at their own risk.

(Edit: updated the OP with a warning, since the info about it having been hotfixed is clearly void >.<)

I'm glad you did update the post, though I probably would've added they could get banned so it would be at their own risk.

[Acherontia]

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