Gems for all

Modicumofrespite said:
Blizzard's goal here should be (and assume is) to create a desire in the 20's to start paying. Letting 24's gem would definitely encourage paying, because it's the desire to gear/power-up that drives paying. The more the 20's get beat on by the paying 24's, the more they should want to pay money. After all, the more (gear) gain dangled in front of their noses, the more 20's want to pay.

Therefore, gems are also in Blizz's business interest and provides good reason to reinstate gems.
Click to expand...

True except for the fact that blizzard doesn't really give a fuck about the 500 trial twinks. The trial is a way to get people back into the game and even to keep them playing. For instance if i wouldn't have played wow during this trial period i wouldn't resub for mists, just because i didn't find i wouldn't find wow interresting anymore. In the end the trial % that would pay for the game if the trial didn't exist is really small. I'd say that having a buggy game where things like this are tolerated is a worse marketing method then having a few players who come back to the game every now and then.
Also making legit kills is alot more satisfing then with a bugged op toon.
 
making legit kills is alot more satisfing then with a bugged op toon.
Click to expand...

If that were true, people would play naked. The goal is to gear as best one can and to have every edge possible. People spend thousands (of gold) on twinks and hours leveling professions, gather mats, potions and elixirs and getting gear. Saying otherwise is nothing but pretending to be altruistic and is dishonest.

Gemming is available to all, it's merely another gearing option and Blizz needs to stop selectively removing some players gems while not others. Why not just let everyone gem? What's the big deal? Nobody gets hurt, it only unbalances the game against non-paying freeloaders, so why not just allow it?
 
"5) At 95% socket cast, have the 400 BS click trade"

Yeah, that's an exploit. Not working as intended at all.

Like us 24's really need more of an advantage against the 20's. And if you need them to get a one up on another 24, /delete toon.

I'm all for putting a high level requirement on gems. 60 minimum since that's really when gems were introduced. There's a reason you don't get to socket stuff until 400 BS.
 
Im very suprised why no one has looked up a screen shot of the fine print in the Terms of use to silence this guy.
Its obvious he isnt going to change his heavy hearted opinion from a couple repliers on the forums.

Please, somebody talk to a GM, screen shot the conversation, and post a picture of him saying if this is an exploit or not...

This is like the World first Heroic Nefarian kill controversy all over again.
 
Sure thing. It'll go like this...

Hi, Mr.GM I'm just wondering if I use a 400 BS friend and he starts socketing bracers and we sorta, kinda, maybe trade them with perfect timing while they are socketing so that I end up with the 400 BS skill item, an item that would be bound to him, because let's face it I don't have 400 BS AND then I put a gem in them that requires 300+ JC, is that an exploit?

Hum... Well you see, I'm not talking about myself, people were just curious on the interwebz... AMG WAIT DON'T BAN M...

/the end
 
SallyG said:
Sure thing. It'll go like this...

Hi, Mr.GM I'm just wondering if I use a 400 BS friend and he starts socketing bracers and we sorta, kinda, maybe trade them with perfect timing while they are socketing so that I end up with the 400 BS skill item, an item that would be bound to him, because let's face it I don't have 400 BS AND then I put a gem in them that requires 300+ JC, is that an exploit?

Hum... Well you see, I'm not talking about myself, people were just curious on the interwebz... AMG WAIT DON'T BAN M...

/the end
Click to expand...
Im sure itd be more complicated than that, and it will depend on the GM, too, but with that in mind, lets stick to the Fine print of the Terms of service.

With that in mind, my request still stands, someone please screen shot the part of the terms of service that is against exploits, post it here, and if he counters it with his way with words that twist it into his favor without making him right, leave him be, he'll just get banned eventually.
 
(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;

There

And for good measure.

(iii) Anything that Blizzard considers contrary to the "essence" of the Game.
 
This is exactly the same thing as putting 40 armor on BoP leg armor drops. The 40 armor can no longer be applied to low level gear, but is still giving the benefit to people's gear that put it on when it could be done. Blizz will choose whether or not to ban people for it, but it is an exploit, and not something Blizz approve of.

A simple way to fix this would be to require 400 BS to activate the sockets, instead of level 1, which it currently has. Blizz do a lot of things wrong, and this is one of them. The gems can be used in any low level bracket that it wasn't intended for, not just 20-24.

Anyone that wants to use the sockets and gems, by all means do, just don't be surprised when they are removed, or your account banned. Admitedly, banning the account seems unlikely, unless you're a repeat offender.
 
(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;

A) If Blizz wanted to place level or skill requirements, they could have, so it's not an "error in design."
B) Gemming procedure is well documented, in the OP and in many other places.
C) It's not a "program bug," see A above.
D) Gemming is equally available to all paying customers, so gemming is no more of a "competitive advantage" than farming any other BiS gear or enchant.

Just make it uniform. All can have gems (this is preferred) or none can have. Other gems and sockets have limits, so don't say it can't be done. And no grandfathering either. All or none.
 
@Modicumofrespite Are you still think this is working as intended? Because im pretty sure you aren't. Just because you can do it doesn't mean it is allowed. It is really easy to break a law and get away with it. Does this mean it is allowed? No, it isn't. But go ahead just do as you like, i wont miss you when you are banned.
 
Modicumofrespite said:
(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;

A) If Blizz wanted to place level or skill requirements, they could have, so it's not an "error in design."
B) Gemming procedure is well documented, in the OP and in many other places.
C) It's not a "program bug," see A above.
D) Gemming is equally available to all paying customers, so gemming is no more of a "competitive advantage" than farming any other BiS gear or enchant.

Just make it uniform. All can have gems (this is preferred) or none can have. Other gems and sockets have limits, so don't say it can't be done. And no grandfathering either. All or none.
Click to expand...

A) It does have a skill requirement of 400. It was never meant to be traded. Something after enough reports they will fix in a patch I am sure.

Socket Bracer - Spell - World of Warcraft Permanently add a socket to your bracers.

Socket Gloves - Spell - World of Warcraft Permanently add a socket to your gloves.

"Your." As in the one with the blacksmithing of 400 or higher. Not the twink who wants to cheat the system.

Spin it however you want but it is an exploit. Take it to a GM. Ya know what, I will. I'll screenshot whatever I get back.

Edit: Ticket in. 3 days 6 hours
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As has been said, ask ten GM's get ten answers. GM's do not set policy. Blizz needs to decide corporately. All 24's can gem or no 24's can gem.

Not, some 24's can gem. Not, keep-em if u got em. Not, we'll remove them for complainers only.

Make it uniform. Allowed for one, allowed for all.
 
Modicumofrespite said:
As has been said, ask ten GM's get ten answers. GM's do not set policy. Blizz needs to decide corporately. All 24's can gem or no 24's can gem.

Not, some 24's can gem. Not, keep-em if u got em. Not, we'll remove them for complainers only.

Make it uniform. Allowed for one, allowed for all.
Click to expand...

I'd say no gems until 60 then. Since that's when gems were introduced in BC. It's an exploit to have gems at low levels. You can say it's not but if you have to trick the system into getting it into the trade window before the cast is actually up, not working as intended. If it was as intended, BS could socket, then just trade normally.

The earliest piece of gear I know of with a socket is relics that come from Scholomance that require level 45.
 
yes 2 relics from sholomance require level-40 (item level-45). they each have one socket slot
 
Blizzard has hotfixed this now. Atleast for the EU!

And i believe this is the 2nd hotfix for this issue. At first you didnt have to check the steps 4 and 5 in the Op's post (wich i was checking) and now it wont trade anymore, it binds in the right way and unable to trade. So yall can be happy now :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GM response to a ticket about this issue.

"Yeah, this is definitely considered an exploit, so don't do it. We do indeed have a team that says they fixed it, but if you see that it's still happening, shoot an email with all of this detailed information to hacks@blizzard.com.

So, good idea to come to us about this and the specifics of this. We definitely don't want this to be reproduced by anybody, so if you see that this is still able to occur (though I guess I would advise against testing it out yourself, so I can see how you'd be like "But how do we KNOW it's fixed?") definitely tell us right away through a ticket like this, and we'll definitely bring it to our hacks team's attention."
 
I actually think this is really good news for the f2p bracket. The same type of person that would create a dual-agm 24 human hunter to troll the f2p bracket is the same type of person that would use this exploit, so when Blizzard purges those that would abuse this exploit, things should get a little better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pay for the game like the rest of us then you can use gems instead of QQing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top