WoW Petopia Community

I've submitted ANOTHER GM ticket just incase this one is misinformed

Cool!

What spider is it? :3

And yet I recieved an answer on my ticket about my burning boar which said 'Yep. It's an exploit. You'll need to delete the pet'.

No screenshot on this one (I know, I know), because I suspect that the GM thought I meant a *literal* burning aura (as in, damage-dealing), and thus I'm trying again, making it clearer that it's a fiery *visual* aura. Planning to screenshot when I get it.

That makes no sense. I would not take that as a permission to tame pets in a way that they retain buffs that make them stronger than they are supposed to be.

I would keep that screenshot though, in case anyone does give you grief/it's reported/the GMs turn around and find out Blizz is actually not ok with this.

Kurasu wrote:And yet I recieved an answer on my ticket about my burning boar which said 'Yep. It's an exploit. You'll need to delete the pet'.

No screenshot on this one (I know, I know), because I suspect that the GM thought I meant a *literal* burning aura (as in, damage-dealing), and thus I'm trying again, making it clearer that it's a fiery *visual* aura. Planning to screenshot when I get it.

I really really hope you don't succeed in getting the pet made non-tameable before I get to tame one. If you do, I'll tame a plain one, and name it after you..

This spider is the spiders in Blasted Lands in the top right of the tainted forest. You need to use the /script PetAbandon() macro and if the pet dies it loses the buff and the appearance.

Slickrock wrote:

Kurasu wrote:And yet I recieved an answer on my ticket about my burning boar which said 'Yep. It's an exploit. You'll need to delete the pet'.

No screenshot on this one (I know, I know), because I suspect that the GM thought I meant a *literal* burning aura (as in, damage-dealing), and thus I'm trying again, making it clearer that it's a fiery *visual* aura. Planning to screenshot when I get it.

I really really hope you don't succeed in getting the pet made non-tameable before I get to tame one. If you do, I'll tame a plain one, and name it after you..

If you were to tame one and Blizz decides they don't want us to tame pets like this, you would lose it same as everyone else. Kurasu isn't "getting the pet made non-tameable," he is trying to make sure nobody that has these pets now or plan to tame them in the future will get in trouble for it.

Sarayana wrote:That makes no sense. I would not take that as a permission to tame pets in a way that they retain buffs that make them stronger than they are supposed to be.

I would keep that screenshot though, in case anyone does give you grief/it's reported/the GMs turn around and find out Blizz is actually not ok with this.

Yes, I agree with this. I do hope that Blizz will choose to solve all this in a way that will allow pets to keep the special appearance, but there's NO way that Blizzard is fine with pets keeping actual buffs. Even if they disappear on death. It goes against the whole pet equalisation they've been trying to achieve.

And ditto on keeping the screenshot, because it's quite likely that someone else will give you trouble for this, so you should be able to prove that a GM gave you permission.

Sarayana wrote: If you were to tame one and Blizz decides they don't want us to tame pets like this, you would lose it same as everyone else. Kurasu isn't "getting the pet made non-tameable," he is trying to make sure nobody that has these pets now or plan to tame them in the future will get in trouble for it.

Still, we have Blizz "eyes and ears" here, so I'm not sure ticketing with uninformed GMs is the best way to address it. "Tier One" support is rarely the best way to get these questions answered, as the developers often have different ideas on what is intended.

What we need is a bat-signal for Wain's special friend.. (Or even Wain, where the heck has he been?.. I wonder....)

will update once I receive response from another GM

First of all, that GM clearly has no idea what they're talking about. Not that it's his or her fault; they can hardly be expected to know EVERYTHING, and to never be wrong. But their reply is just plain wrong.

As much as I love taming the pets with the shiny appearances, they weren't -meant- to be tamed with them being kept. "It looks like it was meant to retain that buff" is just incorrect!

More importantly, if you're keeping this pet around and actually using it, it's an exploit--regardless of what that GM said--and could very well grease the wheels of that truck aiming itself for nerfing the taming of "special" pets.

Please, don't use that spider. Disregard the clearly wrong GM reply >.> The shiny pets are one thing, the real buff pets... Just can't believe the GM replied that lol. Boggles the mind really :S

Acherontia wrote:Please, don't use that spider. Disregard the clearly wrong GM reply >.> The shiny pets are one thing, the real buff pets... Just can't believe the GM replied that lol. Boggles the mind really :S

Well I can- I had a dear of a GM, a dear really but obviously new or english was not his native language, that didn't understand about the pet invincibility buff. He kept first trying to assure me someone was healing my pet, or that I had cast mend pet. Or that it was from Spirit Bond/Blood Thirsty.

I had to specifically say time and time again my pet was self healing for 14-22k hp instantly when near death for him to understand.

Not every GM is tech savvy or hunter savvy.

SO AS ACHERONTIA SAID- and I quoted!

Don't use these DMG buff pets!

Acherontia wrote:First of all, that GM clearly has no idea what they're talking about. Not that it's his or her fault; they can hardly be expected to know EVERYTHING, and to never be wrong. But their reply is just plain wrong.

As much as I love taming the pets with the shiny appearances, they weren't -meant- to be tamed with them being kept. "It looks like it was meant to retain that buff" is just incorrect!

More importantly, if you're keeping this pet around and actually using it, it's an exploit--regardless of what that GM said--and could very well grease the wheels of that truck aiming itself for nerfing the taming of "special" pets.

Please, don't use that spider. Disregard the clearly wrong GM reply >.> The shiny pets are one thing, the real buff pets... Just can't believe the GM replied that lol. Boggles the mind really :S

The problem is that the GM doesn't know the entire story.

He/she probably thinks that you just went out and hit tame and got a pet... and that pet has a "skill" that is passive.

They do not know that you just tamed it at the precise time it needed to be tamed in order to keep said buff.

A tamed pet that has a skin (and only a skin) that was acquired through taming it "just right" is TOTALLY different than having a pet that has a certain skin AND a buff.

There is no gray area here... it is black and white. You either have used "clever game mechanics" to tame a different skin for looks, or you used "clever game mechanics" to tame a pet for the skin and buffs... right or wrong... there is no middle area here unless you want to say "wrong and more wrong". It doesn't matter. I am all for having pets with different looking skins that was tamed using "clever game mechanics", but I am not for having pets with buffs that was acquired the same way.

Isn't it weird that when Blizzard sees a glitch/exploit they like to call it "a clever use of game mechanics" unless it adversely effects how the game is...

You say "permanent on him" but I thought it disappeared after pet/player death.

Pent wrote:Isn't it weird that when Blizzard sees a glitch/exploit they like to call it "a clever use of game mechanics" unless it adversely effects how the game is...

FD: used to put us out of combat; ergo we could echange gear or quickly drink/heal up. For three years or however long. Blizzard didn't do anything because FD and hunters were still broken [it was really one of the few ways we could quickly restore our mana pools when we still used mana]

It's no different than a glyphed Evocation [granted smaller cooldown but eh]

It was called a clever use of game mechanics because we used a broken mechanic to get around a loophole of having to deal with being OOM so bloody much.

The true exploits- mean the evil sinful ones are where you use it to benifit and further yourself. IE; tame a pet that can in theory do more dps. You do it and you do more dps than other hunters; furthering yourself by using a bug/glitch in a system.

So is taming different skins an exploit? To a degree yes, but it's no different than the oil wolf skin as because I've said before, the abandon/revive script macros/whatever work the same way in effect as an ALREADY EXISTING MECHANIC.

As has been stated before, the GMs aren't devs. They might say something is okay, when in reality they don't really know. Their job is just to try and provide basic customer service. We really just need to wait and see what the devs have to say about this, they're the only ones who can give a definitive answer.

And here is the answer I recieved (as well as the question I asked):



Please note: this is *only* for the 'burning pig'. I didn't ask about one with a damage effect because I have none.

We can sit around all day long ticketing GMs, heh... but we just need to wait.

I can read into what Kurasu's GM ticket reply and say that according to that GM... if the developers see taming the pig as being bad they will remove the ability to tame it... the GM said nothing about the pig getting removed from people who had it already...

But I can also see that the GM said it's up to the developers and it is a waiting game til they say anything about it.

Think about it, do we really want them to say anything about it?

All that needs to be said from them is, "We are aware of hunters being able to tame pets that keep their damage buffs after taming and if we are notified of hunters using this exploit there will be consequences."

Anything beyond that would be a bummer, and may require some recoding into the game.

cant believe the first post :O
well off to bed now.
night all

Pent wrote:All that needs to be said from them is, "We are aware of hunters being able to tame pets that keep their damage buffs after taming and if we are notified of hunters using this exploit there will be consequences."

Exactly my point- blizz won't care for the most part; hopefully, because A: they aren't shape shifting into non beast forms [even the ghost wolf fake isn't doing anything compared to Garwhal did] B: If anything it's just visual flare and any hunter with a bit of patience can do it. I finally broke down and went for a fake spirit wolf AND a roast pig on Rosalyn. Took about 20~ tries each before I got Ghost and Roast.

And most of us just like having roasted ham- er I mean, unique pets or quirky pets. Mean I don't care if people start going after these, they'll fade but Roast won't. I finally, truly, have a boar to replace my long, long lost MM boar of olde.


The ones who are abusing for DMG buffs can well go find a short bridge to stroll on