|
Post by 'Ster on Sept 1, 2016 16:00:11 GMT -5
I was about to chime in the other thread that Monsoon had started, but makes sense to start a new thread anyway... Stone - we appreciate your patience, you have to grapple with a lot of issues.
The topic: Hard Rules vs. Play style choices.
Monsoon and others threw their opinions about the invasions, how people should be tagged or not, discussions about if someone bent the rules or took advantage. I'd like to propose this...
There are hard rules irons must follow. These rules were started in the early days of iron, and they were actually pretty simple. Don't die. Use the minimum of gear, talents, resources (food, weapons, etc.). No help from others, especially in the form of money, heals, kills, etc.
Over the years, the rules grew larger to help clarify changes to the Warcraft environment. Makes sense, if the Ironman challenge didn't adapt, it would be over. Pet battles is a classic example.
And then there are "Play Style" choices. Yes, over the years, challengers have proposed all sorts of additional rules, some fun, some to take the challenge to extremes. Some past proposed changes / rules: - No flight paths - No armor at all, go naked - No weapons, just use fists - No pets - No auction house - No dailies - the 3 dailies (PvZ, Winterspring Cub, Help seals)
etc. Lots and lots of play style choices. So we've left these and others for player discretion. You don't want to participate in world events like Invasions? Then don't, it was only 3 weeks long. Don't want the extra XP from holidays like Beer Festival or Hallow's End? Then don't. Want to go naked? Go for it. You don't have to use the AH either if you don't want too. Nor a pet if you're a hunter. Think the Blingtron is a way of cheating to get gold? Then no Blingtron. Oh, think the Dark Moon Fair is a way for easy gold and a 16 slot bag and +5 health for doing nothing with no risk? Then don't do DMF. Some have suggested the 3 dailies are too easy, they should be banned. That's the point, it's your choice!
So, my view of Invasions is that it was a world event. It had real danger for death. (Just ask Ash, Xaya, Lucylynn, and others who lost a toon to it.) As a world event, it was the player's choice to participate or not. If collectively, the iron community wanted to ban it, then the folks who participated in Beta should have spoken sooner. Once people got credit intentionally or by accident (by taking a taxi at the right moment), it was too late. Not one person went from 1-100 (or even 80's?) by using it.
So - Stone... flagging toons post the event would be wrong, in my opinion. Monsoon... we love discussions, thanks for bringing it up, it's how the gatekeepers of this challenge mold/shape/change the IMC to fit current gameplay. Soon the leaders will be faced with the next big issue, how can a regular IMC acquire/use/not-use an artifact weapon? Under what conditions? Etc.
But please don't confuse IMC Rules with Play Style. The little bit of flexibility in the play style choices are what allows IMC to be enjoyed by a wider audience of players.
My humble opinion..
|
|
|
Post by Lyssan on Sept 1, 2016 18:08:28 GMT -5
So, leeching experience while AFK is a play style choice. Good to know The truth is that over the years, people started bending the rules little by little to make it easier to get to the end line. Anything can be a playstyle choice for this purpose. But, this was always a solo challenge. Taking part in a group event (most of the time by doing nothing) is against the hard rules no matter how you want to justify it. However, as I said, this subject is a dead horse by now. People who used invasions got their levels and think it was just fine, I (and some others) think it wasn't. Nobody will change their mind at this point so let's close it here and focus on the future.
|
|
|
Post by Broken Fox on Sept 1, 2016 20:31:59 GMT -5
I lost a 30-something Paladin "tanking" the final boss in an invasion (lasted about 5 seconds, lol). Iron as fuck!
|
|
|
Post by Crystalpall on Sept 2, 2016 2:26:45 GMT -5
Lyssan, if I want I can do 5 pet battle daily quests on my other characters and turn them in on my ironman for a huge heap of experience, effectively making my ironman journey STANDING IN A GOD DAMN INN UNTIL LEVEL 110 (that's how Double, me and others level in Wandering Isle please check here: wow-challenge.npage.de/neutraler-panda.html) . I understand you might be salty as hell because you got 100 the old way and I would be mad too if someone got "for free" what I had to work hard on achieving simply because Blizz decided to add something like that to the game, but there are already ways of getting a completely safe ironman from 1 to end, it's just a matter of speeding it up - by doing quests, killing mobs or participating in invasions if that's the option. I lost 4 ironmen to invasions, because of how bugged and dangerous they were. Free xp? Right, but what if your "safe afking spot" suddenly isn't safe because of some nutjob that lured a monster around that started AoEing for 100k because AoEs weren't scaled down? Or because of that Fel Bombardment that randomly fell from the sky hitting you well over a few times your health cap? Or simply killing demons to triple the exp gaining speed in a relatively controlled manner (one mob at a time etc) and suddenly A TON OF MONSTERS spawns on top of you and you die? Now to my point: There are safe ways to get to cap already and for invasions - They weren't banned officially. You couldn't get over level 100, just maybe get to the same 100 others had. They were dangerous taking all the variables into account. Yes I did them since the start to the end on my F2P, on my main and on my 4 ironmen one after another because that was just the fastest way, but high reward with high risk.
|
|
|
Post by Twofrog on Sept 2, 2016 2:29:32 GMT -5
I agree with Ster. yes leeching xp was a choice, it didn't flag anyone so it didn't break the rules. Yes I did it on my pacifist/bloodthirsty and that was my choice. As far as I'm concerned if it doesn't cause a red flag then it's fair game. Why is my choice less important than someone else's? I still have to do another 80 levels, why does doing a few invasions allow others to denigrate that, and me.
At this point my biggest concern is that by singling people out this is going to promote discrimination. What will happen one someone reaches max who's done invasions, are you going to turn around and say they don't deserve appreciation because they utilized a mechanic that didn't break the rules and that Blizz offered them just because you didn't like it and feel everyone else should agree?
I do agree that invasions should have had a hard rule that said no. It didn't, so really it's time to just learn by it and move on.
All the hating around this is really souring my experience and that saddens me greatly.
|
|
|
Post by brittleiron on Sept 2, 2016 5:20:09 GMT -5
Invasions DID have a hard rule that should have made them off limits.... it was group content. Not in the traditional sense but you couldn't have gotten that experience without help.
Crystalpall: You could do those pet battles but you would get flagged for it as it is something that Stone has ways to track.
And if done right there was ZERO risk to invasions... you could sit in the ocean off the coast of zones and still get credit or on hillsides nowhere near mobs or even potentially 'dragged' mobs. Plus once again... IT WAS GROUP CONTENT.
As for Blodthristy or Pacifists that abused it... I'd be polite about this but that goes beyond just leeching, reroll or just delete the character in my opinion.
I'm tired of "well there was no specific rules that said it isn't allowed so...". Much as some people seem to be annoyed by it the 'Spirit of the Challenge' IS important. If it seems questionable the answer should be NO. If you do the challenge looking for gray areas to abuse... that is against the 'Spirit of the Challenge'. Personal choices to make the challenge harder are fine.... looking for ways around the idea behind the challenge are not.
|
|
Xaya
Community Moderators
Posts: 1,682
|
Post by Xaya on Sept 2, 2016 5:30:59 GMT -5
I won't really talk about invasions since they are over anyway, but more about rules changes. We can hardly propose rule changes before hand, we have to wait until Blizz make live some new thing, see how it goes, say how we fell it should be treated and then Stone makes the final decision if it should be allowed or not and rules changed accordingly along with the tracking site. The fact that 'I didn't get flagged' does not necessarily means it as allowed, it may just mean the rules and website haven't been adjusted yet.
We had weeks of discussions about flying in Draenor, skipping the intro, and using artefact weapons. Any change on the Blizz part will go for a few weeks before we can reach a decision, so I think any new things should be discussed as soon as possible. And whatever the final decision is, some of us will probably not aggree
Xayablood lvl 15 bloodthirsty pandaren monk (alive) Wyrmrest Accord Xayapaci lvl 30 pacifist rogue gnome (alive) Wyrmrest Accord Xayahorde lvl 13 bloodelf rogue (alive) Wyrmrest Accord
|
|
|
Post by Crystalpall on Sept 2, 2016 6:28:07 GMT -5
Invasions DID have a hard rule that should have made them off limits.... it was group content. Not in the traditional sense but you couldn't have gotten that experience without help. Crystalpall: You could do those pet battles but you would get flagged for it as it is something that Stone has ways to track. And if done right there was ZERO risk to invasions... you could sit in the ocean off the coast of zones and still get credit or on hillsides nowhere near mobs or even potentially 'dragged' mobs. Plus once again... IT WAS GROUP CONTENT. As for Blodthristy or Pacifists that abused it... I'd be polite about this but that goes beyond just leeching, reroll or just delete the character in my opinion. I'm tired of "well there was no specific rules that said it isn't allowed so...". Much as some people seem to be annoyed by it the 'Spirit of the Challenge' IS important. If it seems questionable the answer should be NO. If you do the challenge looking for gray areas to abuse... that is against the 'Spirit of the Challenge'. Personal choices to make the challenge harder are fine.... looking for ways around the idea behind the challenge are not. You do the battles on other characters and turn in the quest on ironman.
|
|
|
Post by brittleiron on Sept 2, 2016 7:26:45 GMT -5
Invasions DID have a hard rule that should have made them off limits.... it was group content. Not in the traditional sense but you couldn't have gotten that experience without help. Crystalpall: You could do those pet battles but you would get flagged for it as it is something that Stone has ways to track. And if done right there was ZERO risk to invasions... you could sit in the ocean off the coast of zones and still get credit or on hillsides nowhere near mobs or even potentially 'dragged' mobs. Plus once again... IT WAS GROUP CONTENT. As for Blodthristy or Pacifists that abused it... I'd be polite about this but that goes beyond just leeching, reroll or just delete the character in my opinion. I'm tired of "well there was no specific rules that said it isn't allowed so...". Much as some people seem to be annoyed by it the 'Spirit of the Challenge' IS important. If it seems questionable the answer should be NO. If you do the challenge looking for gray areas to abuse... that is against the 'Spirit of the Challenge'. Personal choices to make the challenge harder are fine.... looking for ways around the idea behind the challenge are not. You do the battles on other characters and turn in the quest on ironman. And it can be tracked.
|
|
|
Post by Crystalpall on Sept 2, 2016 7:33:47 GMT -5
You do the battles on other characters and turn in the quest on ironman. And it can be tracked. Okay, show me the statistic that can track this then please.
|
|
|
Post by 'Ster on Sept 2, 2016 8:29:49 GMT -5
Perfect, I wanted some debate. Remember folks, collectively, we are the rule makers. It's not just Stone, or me, or Ferr, or Lyssan, or Brittle, or Ash, etc... It's all of us. We own the IMC, so we can set the rules. The release of Invasions (and the events that followed the patch and release) is a perfect example of how the IMC can/will change, and as a group, we've got to figure out how we want to frame the environment. Yes, the 3 weeks of invasions is over, a flood of people didn't ding 100, and it gave us a chance to review collectively what is acceptable and what's out of bounds.
So moving forward: - Bring up issues, let's discuss. (and be civil about it, not like we're a crew of darkiron dwarfs) - Offer suggestions / alternatives - Be open minded, some may or may not like your suggestion - Some concepts will stay as play style as a player's choice, others might make it a hard rule. - Some concepts will be trackable, others will be based on player's honor.
At this point, still looking for ideas with Legion. So far, looking very rough to advance levels. Skipping the intro is not breaking a hard rule, it's a player's choice. We've gotta figure out the artifact weapon though.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by brittleiron on Sept 2, 2016 10:41:52 GMT -5
Artifact weapon seems pretty simple... just no upgrading it allowed (assuming you can even manage the quests to get the artifact). Real question is shouldn't we be forced to re-equip our old junk weapons once the artifact quest line is taken care of anyways?
Additionally some of the quests in each zone ARE available even if you don't do the Artifact quest line, but the lead in quests for each zone are not. You end up needing to jump off Dalaran into the ocean and swim to land since Khadgar doesn't give you a lift until after the Artifact quest lines.
Skipping the Intro may as well be allowed as it is group content anyways and nothing more than a effort to avoid standing in a bad spot while the script plays itself out.
As for the pet battles you get credit towards the pet battle achievements on the character the quest is turned in on. Not the one that did the battle. So the progress on the achievement is trackable.
|
|
|
Post by umabbas on Sept 2, 2016 11:06:08 GMT -5
The harder and more rigid the rules get, the more numerous and sometimes really ridiculous the guidelines become, the more likely the challenge slowly but surely dies off, attracting zero to none people because who the heck would want to wade through dozens and dozens of dos and don'ts. Especially new folks. Especially if you're of the opinion that it doesn't break the spirit of challenge, but others just decided it for you - on your personal challenge no less - that it's not acceptable?
To me, this reeks of really bad elitism. This, what is happening in the past months, is like a casual raiding guild that has eyes on top progression, throwing in more and more hurdles to the regular and casual members to join the ranks, expelling them and making them sorry they have even joined.
My opinion: Make the hard rules the most obvious, as it is now, as it always was before adding too much of the expansion and exception marast - no death, no pots, no greens or up, no party, no pet battles if that's so much against it. [Allow artifact for the time being until discussed otherwise, without leveling it].
The rest? Leave it to personal opinion. Yes, there will be cheaters. Yes, there will be rule benders and dancers. But those who want to bend the rules are even more likely to try and do so if there's gajillion of nonsensical restrictions for every breath you take in the iron skin. If you leave more to the personal interpretation, people are actually more likely to join and make it their personal challenge to pursue, rather than be one of those elites on the top ranks, because that's all that matters ("Look! I got the max among the other 5 in the whole expansion! You suck because you never did!" - You get mt idea). The more voluntary and personal it stays, the more likely this challenge and its spirit will live on.
My 5¢.
|
|
|
Post by Crystalpall on Sept 2, 2016 11:11:44 GMT -5
The harder and more rigid the rules get, the more numerous and sometimes really ridiculous the guidelines become, the more likely the challenge slowly but surely dies off, attracting zero to none people because who the heck would want to wade through dozens and dozens of dos and don'ts. Especially new folks. Especially if you're of the opinion that it doesn't break the spirit of challenge, but others just decided it for you - on your personal challenge no less - that it's not acceptable? To me, this reeks of really bad elitism. This, what is happening in the past months, is like a casual raiding guild that has eyes on top progression, throwing in more and more hurdles to the regular and casual members to join the ranks, expelling them and making them sorry they have even joined. My opinion: Make the hard rules the most obvious, as it is now, as it always was before adding too much of the expansion and exception marast - no death, no pots, no greens or up, no party, no pet battles if that's so much against it. [Allow artifact for the time being until discussed otherwise, without leveling it]. The rest? Leave it to personal opinion. Yes, there will be cheaters. Yes, there will be rule benders and dancers. But those who want to bend the rules are even more likely to try and do so if there's gajillion of nonsensical restrictions for every breath you take in the iron skin. If you leave more to the personal interpretation, people are actually more likely to join and make it their personal challenge to pursue, rather than be one of those elites on the top ranks, because that's all that matters ( "Look! I got the max among the other 5 in the whole expansion! You suck because you never did!" - You get mt idea). The more voluntary and personal it stays, the more likely this challenge and its spirit will live on. My 5¢. I felt very similar after reading forum for first time I came here, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Twofrog on Sept 2, 2016 11:12:13 GMT -5
Perfect, I wanted some debate. Remember folks, collectively, we are the rule makers. It's not just Stone, or me, or Ferr, or Lyssan, or Brittle, or Ash, etc... It's all of us. We own the IMC, so we can set the rules. The release of Invasions (and the events that followed the patch and release) is a perfect example of how the IMC can/will change, and as a group, we've got to figure out how we want to frame the environment. Yes, the 3 weeks of invasions is over, a flood of people didn't ding 100, and it gave us a chance to review collectively what is acceptable and what's out of bounds. Thanks Ster for returning some semblance of perspective to my frazzled mind! I think you've helped me realise I'm a woman that like's keeping life on the simpler side ie, get to max lvl, keep a green flag. That's enough for me! You guys are far better placed to make the rule changes as needed and have way more experience. Honestly if you all decided to retroactively red flag everyone who'd done invasions I wouldn't quibble about it but until then I'll just play based on that green flag business and leave the policy making to those that want to be involved in that sort of thing. For me I'll keep my toes out of the sticky, gray area stuff! And finally just to be clear, I do actually appreciate all the hard work, time and effort it takes to keep this challenge current and active, and for all the gray area fuzziness you have to wade through to get there. Thank you:)
|
|