Heirlooms

10/05/2011 11:50 AMPosted by Kevyne
The reason you might not accept the fact we call this a technical limitation seems to be because we fundamentally disagree about how the system should work.


And we know that it wasn't some "technical" reason it couldn't be done, too. If other MMOs can communicate and mail across different games (SOE and their games, for example), we know WoW and Blizzard's lineup can do the same.

It had to be a reason, from Activision-Blizzard, to not impliment this feature. Point blank.


Perhaps Activision-Blizzard should call you up on the phone for all their future business decisions being that I'm sure you weighted in all the factors involved in making such an obvious feature "WE" the player should already have... Why do people always assume the worst? This issue has been discussed since BoA became available. When publicly making a statement.... one should do the research before presenting their "slippery slope" argument(s) Point blank.
95 Undead Death Knight
9320
10/05/2011 02:48 PMPosted by Merundian
well BoA means Binds on Account it doesnt say Binds on Realm... see the difference.
"Restricted to the Account"

Seems fine to me.

As opposed to "Restricted to the Realm" which is an incorrect description for the items' functionality.
Edited by Frosthawk on 10/5/2011 2:51 PM PDT
90 Goblin Hunter
8465


I think you have your "Account bound" a little misunderstood. Account-Bound gives the unmistakeable idea that the item in question is in fact transferable anywhere on the ACCOUNT, therefore Account Bound = Product Key Bound (in an Anti-Multi-Boxer effort)
It communicates the idea that the item is NOT transferable OFF the account.

Hence, "bound", "tied down" "restricted", various other synonyms.


Tied down to the account which all of my current and/or future characters will be on..

Thank you, drive thru...
95 Undead Death Knight
9320
It communicates the idea that the item is NOT transferable OFF the account.

Hence, "bound", "tied down" "restricted", various other synonyms.


Tied down to the account which all of my current and/or future characters will be on..

Thank you, drive thru...
And since you can't trade it to a character that isn't on the account, it is restricted to the account.

"Bind" isn't "can go anywhere in", it's "cannot leave".

The future implementation for cross-realm mail for BoA items is a bonus not contained in the tag.

The number of your characters that can recieve the items in the mail is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the fact that the characters that it can be transferred to are not on other accounts.
100 Blood Elf Priest
8240
It communicates the idea that the item is NOT transferable OFF the account.

Hence, "bound", "tied down" "restricted", various other synonyms.


Tied down to the account which all of my current and/or future characters will be on..

Thank you, drive thru...


I disagree. IIRC, the BOA gear can be sent to a different account on the battle.net account as long the realm is the same, hence the term Bind-to- Battle.net Account is actually correct. If it was Bind-to-Realm, then it would not be transferable to another account on the Battle.net account.
90 Pandaren Warrior
16560
@Pal,

Here's the solution...

Same exsisting system in place, use my previous suggestion for an account level interface page.

To get the item placed on the list, you mail it to your account email through the ingame mail system.

Once mailed, it shows up on the page and can be subsequentially mailed back to any character through the account page interface.


Edited by Dorrell on 10/5/2011 2:57 PM PDT
95 Undead Death Knight
9320



Tied down to the account which all of my current and/or future characters will be on..

Thank you, drive thru...


I disagree. IIRC, the BOA gear can be sent to a different account on the battle.net account as long the realm is the same, hence the term Bind-to- Battle.net Account is actually correct. If it was Bind-to-Realm, then it would not be transferable to another account on the Battle.net account.
It would, actually.

The only thing it wouldn't be able to do is leave the server, something that all items can do via a server transfer.

Anything else would presumably be fair game... including the ability to send it to other peoples' characters, which is not how BoA items work, and is thus an incorrect name for the items no matter which way you slice it.
Edited by Frosthawk on 10/5/2011 2:58 PM PDT
84 Night Elf Druid
5770


I disagree. IIRC, the BOA gear can be sent to a different account on the battle.net account as long the realm is the same, hence the term Bind-to- Battle.net Account is actually correct. If it was Bind-to-Realm, then it would not be transferable to another account on the Battle.net account.
It would, actually.

The only thing it wouldn't be able to do is leave the server, something that all items can do via a server transfer.

Anything else would presumably be fair game... including the ability to send it to other peoples' characters, which is not how BoA items work, and is thus an incorrect name for the items no matter which way you slice it.





It really doesn't matter. It's semantics. Neither of them are perfect descriptions. You can finagle either one into being "more accurate", but it really doesn't matter.

Hell

"Bind on Server,Account."
or
"bind on server" and
"bind on account"


Not a big deal, guys. Try to keep it constructive.
85 Undead Warlock
2755
10/05/2011 02:04 PMPosted by Sométhing
Zar, you and the other CM's have said theres a Limitiation preventing this feature. can you describe the technical details of the limitation?


This has already been done. Look through the blue tracker on MMO champion for the info.

Here's the situation as I recall:

WoW was originally developed a certain way. There was no universal account system -- you didn't log into a battle.net account, you logged into a WoW account, and this was separate from your StarCraft or Diablo battle.net accounts, which were also separate from each other.

They redesigned and re-released battle.net. New features, new functionality, new bells and whistles.

WoW was still not written or coded to be fully integrated with the new system. Remember all of the headaches people had logging into the system and authenticating? I pushed back merging my battle.net and WoW accounts as long as I could because there were major issues associated with doing so.

Anyway, WoW was never coded to communicate with battle.net in that way, and over time they've had to write in additional functionality and features compatible with b.net and WoW.

Last I had heard, this whole project was in the Battle.net team's court. They are the ones who have to make the requisite programming changes in order for you to be able to mail stuff cross-realm.

Blizzard is fairly compartmentalized, each team has a task or thing to do, and that's all they do. Art does Art, the movie team makes movies, the WoW team works on WoW, the battle.net team works on battle.net.

So there's some Battle.net programming hocus pocus that needs to happen before any of this can go forward. That isn't the WoW dev team's fault.

Further, if you think you can do things better, Blizzard is hiring. Go submit your resume, get hired, and fix it. Otherwise you're complaining out of ignorance and frankly, that doesn't help your cause one iota.
90 Undead Warrior
10010
suggestion steve is here! :O

here's what I would have in mind maybe if I were trying to solve the same problem

the first step would be actually removing heirlooms, haha, and what would take it's place instead is an item that when used would actually set something on your account that would allow every character on your account to gain 10% (or whatever the shoulders/chest gain was) xp gain.

and you would have an option in the ui to be able to enable or disable this extra xp gain.

I sort of like this way because you knock three birds with one stone, you can "transfer" your xp gain bonus to other servers, and you can make twink bg brackets more balanced, and make the dungeon and leveling content slightly harder.
100 Blood Elf Priest
8240
Ehh it is constructive. In order to achieve cross-realm transfers, parameters must be established in order to stay in bounds of how the system can work and can't work.
85 Undead Warlock
2755
@Pal,

Here's the solution...

Same exsisting system in place, use my previous suggestion for an account level interface page.

To get the item placed on the list, you mail it to your account email through the ingame mail system.

Once mailed, it shows up on the page and can be subsequentially mailed back to any character through the account page interface.


WoW Devs != Battle.net devs.
90 Pandaren Warrior
16560
Anyway, WoW was never coded to communicate with battle.net in that way, and over time they've had to write in additional functionality and features compatible with b.net and WoW.

Last I had heard, this whole project was in the Battle.net team's court. They are the ones who have to make the requisite programming changes in order for you to be able to mail stuff cross-realm.

Blizzard is fairly compartmentalized, each team has a task or thing to do, and that's all they do. Art does Art, the movie team makes movies, the WoW team works on WoW, the battle.net team works on battle.net.

So there's some Battle.net programming hocus pocus that needs to happen before any of this can go forward. That isn't the WoW dev team's fault.


Well, to an extent, they've come a long long way in the account functionality with B.net. In reality, we'll have to see how the account system for the D3 auction house is going to effect the long term development for account level features in WoW.
90 Night Elf Hunter
8860
I think there is a big misunderstanding here Z, especially about the mailing of items across realms.

What the first poster was trying to do was eliminate the excess coding invloved with coding stuff across realms and locking stuff to specific servers.
Let me present two simple scenarios:-

Scenario 1 :One player buys a boa sword on draka and transfers with their boe sword to llane server. and send the boe to a lvl 1.


scenario 2: Player two in the new revamped system (we are trying to get implimented), Buys the boe on draka.This immediately unlocks that specific boe on every server that the player has a character on.So the player starts a level one on llane, Immediately the wow system identifies that this player has the boe weapon unlocked and thus activates. The player simply walks to the boe vendor and obtains the boe sword from the vendor.


no mailing involved at all.

There is also no fundamental differance between the two scenarios since we can only play one character at a time so even if the boes were unlocked on each and every realm.A person will only be in possesion of one set of legitemately unlocked boes at any specific time.


Of course no matter what route is chosen to solve this issue .Some coding will always have to be implemented.This solution just seems to be much easier than mailing stuff across realms.

At the moment , it's very hard for me to start fresh on my dk on a new realm because i don't have my boes which i have paid for and earned.To make it worse the realm is a pvp realm, getting owned by other boe players while i don't have the ones that I bought and paid for isnt nice.
Edited by Havokshot on 10/5/2011 3:07 PM PDT
95 Undead Death Knight
9320
It would, actually.

The only thing it wouldn't be able to do is leave the server, something that all items can do via a server transfer.

Anything else would presumably be fair game... including the ability to send it to other peoples' characters, which is not how BoA items work, and is thus an incorrect name for the items no matter which way you slice it.





It really doesn't matter. It's semantics. Neither of them are perfect descriptions. You can finagle either one into being "more accurate", but it really doesn't matter.

Hell

"Bind on Server,Account."
or
"bind on server" and
"bind on account"


Not a big deal, guys. Try to keep it constructive.
Actually, I can make the claim that one of them is a perfect description... because one of them is indeed a perfect description.

"Bind on Battle.net Account", unable to be traded to characters that aren't on one of the WoW accounts associated with the purchasing character's Battle.net login.

This is in line with the actual definitions of the words in the tag (as opposed to the other option which is not) and also in line with the functionality of the items. If the character isn't on your Battle.net account, you can't give it to him.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be looking forward to when this feature is finally, finally implemented, and I want it to happen before the end of the world. I just want it to be so because it would be a nice convenient feature, not because of some alleged advertisement contained within the tag of the items that doesn't actually exist.
90 Pandaren Warrior
16560
@Pal,

Here's the solution...

Same exsisting system in place, use my previous suggestion for an account level interface page.

To get the item placed on the list, you mail it to your account email through the ingame mail system.

Once mailed, it shows up on the page and can be subsequentially mailed back to any character through the account page interface.


WoW Devs != Battle.net devs.


Yep, because there's no cross team communication and every dev team works in quiet enclosed cells, only communicating with others outside of that cell through their project leads...

/facedesk
85 Human Death Knight
4370
Man reading Zarhym's response made me depressed. It seems Blizzard knows that there are pleanty of ways to get around the current system and give heirloom access to all our characters but they don't want to implement them because it doesn't fit their "view" of what the game should be. They only want to do it one way, their way, which would be fine if not for the fact that it's been years and they still haven't gotten around these "technical limitations".

Seems we'll never get cross realm servers because Blizzard isn't willing to budge from their "view" but at the same time they either can't or are unwilling to devote the time to fixing these "technical limitations".
85 Undead Warlock
2755
Yep, because there's no cross team communication and every dev team works in quiet enclosed cells, only communicating with others outside of that cell through their project leads...

/facedesk


If you want to look at it that way, that's your problem not mine.

They can communicate all they want, but that doesn't mean that each team doesn't have its own, over-riding projects that it has to get done before they can work on 'other' projects.

It's more about triage than not communicating. I'm talking about doing the actual work.

The WoW Devs don't do development work on battle.net, and battle.net devs don't do dev work on WoW. But thank you for being dense about it.
84 Night Elf Druid
5770
10/05/2011 03:07 PMPosted by Frosthawk
Don't get me wrong, I'll be looking forward to when this feature is finally, finally implemented, and I want it to happen before the end of the world. I just want it to be so because it would be a nice convenient feature, not because of some alleged advertisement contained within the tag of the items that doesn't actually exist.


It never was about the name. Some people were disapointed/didn't understand the naming convention. It wasn't the driving force behind the feature though. If it was, they'd just rename it. They're adding it because it'd be a good addition to the game.

That's why i said it doesn't matter how it's labeled, it's the same item. "a rose by any other name is just as sweet" and all that jazz.
Edited by Tyrazsun on 10/5/2011 3:19 PM PDT
This topic has reached its post limit. You may no longer post or reply to posts for this topic.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]