Heirlooms

General Discussion
Prev 1 2 3 4 6 Next
The problem here is not your suggestion (it's actually quite good compared to most). The problem is your reasoning. Yes having an interface like the character transfer interface to move heirlooms from character A to character B no matter the server would be a great way to do it. I agree with that. Your reasoning that BoA items are not truely bound to your account is wrong.
02/07/2013 11:35 AMPosted by Somaliu
The problem here is not your suggestion (it's actually quite good compared to most). The problem is your reasoning. Yes having an interface like the character transfer interface to move heirlooms from character A to character B no matter the server would be a great way to do it. I agree with that. Your reasoning that BoA items are not truely bound to your account is wrong.


They are truly bound to my account. Where did I say that they weren't? My argument is based on the fact that my account spans multiple servers and has several dozen characters. All of those characters, under the premise of 'Binds on Battle.net Account' should be able to have access to those items regardless as to which server the current character in possession of them is on. The BOA should be transferable to any character, regardless as to the server, and without moving a character from that server. If I want all of my characters to stay put, that's a $50 fee. That's completely unreasonable (not to mention the waiting period between transfers) just to get a handful of items that explicitly imply that they are movable across servers.
Who said anything about trading items across servers? While it's been frustrating at times, I completely understand why Blizzard doesn't allow this. The functions that I'm talking about isn't about trading. Mail system is a possibility (with the condition of making it account wide vs bound) which doesn't require cross server mail. And I've admitted that cross server mail might be too difficult. But have you failed you read any part of my third solution which I endorse even more so than either of the other two options? Or did you just find one thing that sticks out as 'uber difficult' and use that as a basis to say that my argument of "this should have already been done" is invalid?


My apologies. I was under the assumption that the entire basis for this thread and all of the others just like it was that you couldn't transfer your heirlooms to other characters who weren't on the same realm as the one who obtained them.

That.. is transferring items, isn't it?

And yes, I did read your suggestions. For a system that treats heirlooms like pets were once treated (sent to every character on creation), that won't work as it's exactly what they don't want to do, as stated by themselves.

A system where one must use the website interface to achieve the goal isn't a horrible method, but again - it's not the way Blizzard wants to handle this.

For the record, I never claimed your argument or opinion was invalid. That entire post you quoted wasn't even directed at you specifically, but more so at the general round of complaints and arguments that get brought up every single time the word "heirloom" is mentioned.
02/07/2013 11:34 AMPosted by Bubblykiss
It's the simple fact that you cannot trade items across realms. Period


/rolls need

xxlegolaslassxx "hey bra, i neded that 4 os, BM"

/opens trade window


Yeah, you would've had a point if there wasn't a time limit on when that was possible. Go into a dungeon and open a trade window with someone and try to trade them anything not from that dungeon. Go ahead. I'm sure it'll work.
just to get a handful of items that explicitly imply that they are movable across servers.


There is your false reasoning. No item ever implies it is movable across servers. Since day 1 of the game items could not be moved across servers. None, zip, zero, zilch.

You are misreading the term 'binding' you are assuming something based on ... actually I have no idea.

Binding is a RESTRICTION on items and nothing more, same as it always has been. Nothing in the term 'bind to B.Net account' implies in even a remote way that it's movable across servers.
I should also note that I am in no way opposed to making BoA items trasnferable between servers. I'm in full support of that.

My issue was more with the incorrect belief that something that is "Binds to Account" inherently implies "Account-wide".

I have no problem with your suggestions, OP, other than disagreeing that they are the best solution.
02/07/2013 11:41 AMPosted by Calbador
Who said anything about trading items across servers? While it's been frustrating at times, I completely understand why Blizzard doesn't allow this. The functions that I'm talking about isn't about trading. Mail system is a possibility (with the condition of making it account wide vs bound) which doesn't require cross server mail. And I've admitted that cross server mail might be too difficult. But have you failed you read any part of my third solution which I endorse even more so than either of the other two options? Or did you just find one thing that sticks out as 'uber difficult' and use that as a basis to say that my argument of "this should have already been done" is invalid?


My apologies. I was under the assumption that the entire basis for this thread and all of the others just like it was that you couldn't transfer your heirlooms to other characters who weren't on the same realm as the one who obtained them.

That.. is transferring items, isn't it?

And yes, I did read your suggestions. For a system that treats heirlooms like pets were once treated (sent to every character on creation), that won't work as it's exactly what they don't want to do, as stated by themselves.

A system where one must use the website interface to achieve the goal isn't a horrible method, but again - it's not the way Blizzard wants to handle this.

For the record, I never claimed your argument or opinion was invalid. That entire post you quoted wasn't even direct at you specifically, but more so at the general round of complaints and arguments that get brought up every single time the word "heirloom" is mentioned.


So, if Blizzard doesn't want an out of game system to move BOA's, and they don't want to give every character of yours an unenchanted copy of every BOA that you own, then why are they going about it through the most difficult manner? Some one in one of my previous threads actually stated that this is a high priority for Blizzard, but if it's a high priority, then why not get a system working fast and correctly, then work on the infrastructure to change the way the game works to do it the way that you wanted to in the first place? If this was a priority, Blizzard would be taking the easiest routes first, while still working on the best routes later.

I don't like copying and pasting parts of quotes, I do it if the quote is absurdly long, or if the point I'm trying to get at specifically may be over looked. Transferring items (outside of trades which are immediate and have no oversight) is a different beast than trading them, and it screws with server economies. If I've got a ton of enchanting mats that don't sell for squat on my server, why not trade them to a friend on a different one, have him sell them and we split the comparatively enormous profits? Or, if a guy on a different server can't afford the mats because the price is too high, why not try to get some one to give them to him, or sell them to him for much less than his server's prices are?

Since we very well know that data transfers, and can be stored across servers, it's the mechanism that allows for BOA gear to be sent from one server to another but doesn't allow the other transfers to get through that's the problem as well as the in game interface. However, since we know that there is a meta game transfer, we should be using that instead. Since we know that GM's can create and delete items at a whim, we know that it's entirely possible for this to happen. It could even work as an in game ticket, takes 24 hours to transfer, and you'll lose all enchantments and be unable to play either character during that time, but the transfer still happens.

In these cases, data doesn't have to be transferred really, just created and deleted then verified for accuracy.
just to get a handful of items that explicitly imply that they are movable across servers.


There is your false reasoning. No item ever implies it is movable across servers. Since day 1 of the game items could not be moved across servers. None, zip, zero, zilch.

You are misreading the term 'binding' you are assuming something based on ... actually I have no idea.

Binding is a RESTRICTION on items and nothing more, same as it always has been. Nothing in the term 'bind to B.Net account' implies in even a remote way that it's movable across servers.


Bind on pickup means that once picked up, the item is yours, it cannot be traded (except in dungeon groups) and cannot be sold on the AH. These items may be transferred to other servers via character transfer

Bind on equip means that if you use the item, it's yours. Once used, it cannot be traded or sold on the AH. Before being bound to your character, it may be sent to any other character on your server and faction, or can be sold to the opposing faction via the neutral AH. These items can be transferred via character transfer, if still not bound, they can then be traded or sold to anyone of the same faction, or be put on the neutral AH to be sold to anyone.

Binds on Battle.net account means that the item is bound only by the constraints of the account. Any character on the account may use it. These items can be transferred with a character transfer, just like the two above.

That to me sounds like I should be able to send it to any character on my account, but that infrastructure has not been appropriately built. Again, if Blizzard didn't agree with this statement, then they wouldn't even consider given players the option. If they wanted it bound to characters on a specific server, then it would say "Binds on Server".
The fact it's an item implies it cannot be sent cross server except in a transfer.

Binding FURTHER RESTRICTS that :

Bind on pick up makes it so it can't go to other characters once you loot it.
Bind on Equip makes it so it can't go to other characters once you equip it.
Bind on account makes it so it can only go to other characters on your account.

No item removes the top line.
02/07/2013 12:03 PMPosted by Stealthyfail
If they wanted it bound to characters on a specific server, then it would say "Binds on Server".


That was my original point the misuse of language in the wording of the description. So once more it should be:

BTTEABOUBBFOTSTACLOIYWTUTOYEATPUFASTOJLTOTSSLTIAONSABBFOTOSTAOC Items

or more simply:

Bound to the entire account, but only usable by both factions on the servers they are currently located on, if you wish to use them on your entire account then pay us for a server transfer or just leave them on the server specif location that is as of now still accessible by both factions on that one server they are on, currently

By using this description blizz could avoid the aggravation of dealing with people who just want an accurate description of BoAs.
Guys, seriously, who the hell cares whether someone likes the label added to the item? Blizzard gets to name the restrictions are with each of its item classifications. Binds to Battle Net Account means whatever the hell they say it means. As of now, that term means all characters on that server. They do not hide that they cannot be sent cross server. Why does that part matter?

Just say you want the heirlooms to be, using Blizzard definitions, Account-Wide as opposed to Bind to Battle.net Account. That is a suggestion. It does not matter whether you agree with the label. What you really disagree with is the restriction. I don't think I have seen anyone disagree that it would be good to be able to send heirlooms across servers.

So, there is really no point in arguing about how Blizzard decides to name the different restrictions. What you care about is the actual restriction. Not the name used to describe the restriction.
02/07/2013 12:03 PMPosted by Stealthyfail
If they wanted it bound to characters on a specific server, then it would say "Binds on Server".


But that would be false as Binds on Server would imply that it could never (even with a transfer) be taken off the server and that you could send it to anyone on your server.
The fact it's an item implies it cannot be sent cross server except in a transfer.

Binding FURTHER RESTRICTS that :

Bind on pick up makes it so it can't go to other characters once you loot it.
Bind on Equip makes it so it can't go to other characters once you equip it.
Bind on account makes it so it can only go to other characters on your account.

No item removes the top line.


It's a restriction that doesn't imply in any way shape or form that I'll have to pay $25 and move a character to access them. I would expect that kind of limitation on whites. As of right now they are server bound. Bound to whatever server you transferred a character holding them to and subject to 3 day waiting periods before you can move the character and the items again.

A character transfer implies that I no longer want my character on the server that it currently resides on. It's more of a backdoor way to move items from one server to another. For instance, if I was part of a party that downed LK back in the day, and I wanted to have "Kingslayer" to lord over people from another realm and be the unofficial first Kingslayer there (the feat of strength doesn't transfer unless you were the first on your original server), then that makes sense. If I just want to re-roll on a different server with the account bound items that I worked hard for, then that does not imply that I should have to move my character to that server. Again, if Blizzard didn't agree with this statement, they wouldn't be working on this at all, but they have been (the progress has just been much too slow), and I really think that this is what you're missing. Blizzard agrees with the people who want this to happen, they just haven't met our level of urgency in getting it done.
02/07/2013 12:13 PMPosted by Tobiàs
Binds to Battle Net Account means whatever the hell they say it means.


Herein is the crux of the matter. English is a living language, yet to be understood one is compelled to use words as they are understood rather than redefining them constantly and arbitrarily to fit one's needs at one time.

Bound and wide are fundamentally different as defined early. Blizz choose bound which means something to speakers of the language. They may have chosen wrong.

Goes to order coffee, is asked what size tall, grande or venti. Remembers that company is trying to instill branding by reforming my usage of language thus furthering my loyalty to its products. Walks out, goes to corner market buys a medium coffee for 300% less than would have paid at first store.
The fact it's an item implies it cannot be sent cross server except in a transfer.

Binding FURTHER RESTRICTS that :

Bind on pick up makes it so it can't go to other characters once you loot it.
Bind on Equip makes it so it can't go to other characters once you equip it.
Bind on account makes it so it can only go to other characters on your account.

No item removes the top line.


It's a restriction that doesn't imply in any way shape or form that I'll have to pay $25 and move a character to access them. I would expect that kind of limitation on whites. As of right now they are server bound. Bound to whatever server you transferred a character holding them to and subject to 3 day waiting periods before you can move the character and the items again.

A character transfer implies that I no longer want my character on the server that it currently resides on. It's more of a backdoor way to move items from one server to another. For instance, if I was part of a party that downed LK back in the day, and I wanted to have "Kingslayer" to lord over people from another realm and be the unofficial first Kingslayer there (the feat of strength doesn't transfer unless you were the first on your original server), then that makes sense. If I just want to re-roll on a different server with the account bound items that I worked hard for, then that does not imply that I should have to move my character to that server. Again, if Blizzard didn't agree with this statement, they wouldn't be working on this at all, but they have been (the progress has just been much too slow), and I really think that this is what you're missing. Blizzard agrees with the people who want this to happen, they just haven't met our level of urgency in getting it done.


It does not matter what it implies. The actual definition of what it means is available to you should you choose to look at it. The fact that they are working on it does not in any way mean they feel they have mislableled it or that they agree with your interpretation of what "Binds to Battle.net Account" means. All it means is that they have acknowledged that people would like to be able to sent them cross server and that they don't see that as a bad thing. It has nothing to do with what it is named.

Binds to Account means exactly what they say it means at any time. Your inference as to what it should mean is not relevant in any way.

Hopefully the cross server feature is available at some point. Certainly does not mean Blizzard has mislead anyone with the current restriction.
02/07/2013 12:03 PMPosted by Stealthyfail
That to me sounds like I should be able to send it to any character on my account, but that infrastructure has not been appropriately built. Again, if Blizzard didn't agree with this statement, then they wouldn't even consider given players the option. If they wanted it bound to characters on a specific server, then it would say "Binds on Server".


That's the thing, though. You are able to send it to any character on your account. But, the infrastructure allowing the process to be handled in a convenient and efficient manner doesn't exist, so the only viable option for now is to use character transfers.

It's for that very reason that "Binds to Battle.net Account" is accurate, and the correct terminology to use for such items.


It's a restriction that doesn't imply in any way shape or form that I'll have to pay $25 and move a character to access them. I would expect that kind of limitation on whites. As of right now they are server bound. Bound to whatever server you transferred a character holding them to and subject to 3 day waiting periods before you can move the character and the items again.

A character transfer implies that I no longer want my character on the server that it currently resides on. It's more of a backdoor way to move items from one server to another. For instance, if I was part of a party that downed LK back in the day, and I wanted to have "Kingslayer" to lord over people from another realm and be the unofficial first Kingslayer there (the feat of strength doesn't transfer unless you were the first on your original server), then that makes sense. If I just want to re-roll on a different server with the account bound items that I worked hard for, then that does not imply that I should have to move my character to that server. Again, if Blizzard didn't agree with this statement, they wouldn't be working on this at all, but they have been (the progress has just been much too slow), and I really think that this is what you're missing. Blizzard agrees with the people who want this to happen, they just haven't met our level of urgency in getting it done.


It does not matter what it implies. The actual definition of what it means is available to you should you choose to look at it. The fact that they are working on it does not in any way mean they feel they have mislableled it or that they agree with your interpretation of what "Binds to Battle.net Account" means. All it means is that they have acknowledged that people would like to be able to sent them cross server and that they don't see that as a bad thing. It has nothing to do with what it is named.

Binds to Account means exactly what they say it means at any time. Your inference as to what it should mean is not relevant in any way.

Hopefully the cross server feature is available at some point. Certainly does not mean Blizzard has mislead anyone with the current restriction.


They admitted once already that the items were not as advertised, by changing it so that they can be traded to characters of a different faction. And any present work that we've been told is happening is further proof that the name has not lived up to the player expectations, nor are they content with the current situation of them. I just want to know why this hasn't been a much higher priority since it's a known issue since WotLK, and since they are making money off of it, it looks even worse.
02/07/2013 12:24 PMPosted by Bubblykiss
Binds to Battle Net Account means whatever the hell they say it means.

Herein is the crux of the matter. English is a living language, yet to be understood one is compelled to use words as they are understood rather than redefining them constantly and arbitrarily to fit one's needs at one time.

Bound and wide are fundamentally different as defined early. Blizz choose bound which means something to speakers of the language. They may have chosen wrong.

Goes to order coffee, is asked what size tall, grande or venti. Remembers that company is trying to instill branding by reforming my usage of language thus furthering my loyalty to its products. Walks out, goes to corner market buys a medium coffee for 300% less than would have paid at first store.


To me, bound means there is some form of restriction on the item. That lead me to look up what it meant in this instance as BOA clearly was a defined term to me. If it were a single word, I would agree with you. But this is a collection (very few) words to label an item. They can't put out a definition of each item type on every item, so they use a "Defined Term." BOE is a defined term as well. It means Bind on Equip, to a single faction, on a single server. Yet we do not expect them to use it there. Why is it that everyone understands BOE but not BOA?
Again, BoA is a restriction, not a promise they will be present across realms.

The RESTRICTION is what matters here. Obviously they are not Bind on Realm or you couldn't transfer them to other realms. However you CAN transfer them to other realms, so the term BoA is accurate.

I don't know why people keep pushing the "BoA isn't really BoA!!!!!" angle. It buys you nothing and just makes you look like you want to play semantic word games.


It does not matter what it implies. The actual definition of what it means is available to you should you choose to look at it. The fact that they are working on it does not in any way mean they feel they have mislableled it or that they agree with your interpretation of what "Binds to Battle.net Account" means. All it means is that they have acknowledged that people would like to be able to sent them cross server and that they don't see that as a bad thing. It has nothing to do with what it is named.

Binds to Account means exactly what they say it means at any time. Your inference as to what it should mean is not relevant in any way.

Hopefully the cross server feature is available at some point. Certainly does not mean Blizzard has mislead anyone with the current restriction.


They admitted once already that the items were not as advertised, by changing it so that they can be traded to characters of a different faction. And any present work that we've been told is happening is further proof that the name has not lived up to the player expectations, nor are they content with the current situation of them. I just want to know why this hasn't been a much higher priority since it's a known issue since WotLK, and since they are making money off of it, it looks even worse.


My guess is that CRZ is their first foray into getting multiple servers to work together. Implimenting something of that scale for nothing other than sending items is probably not sufficient to warrant the resource. But, by using a larger project to piggyback the technology, the change may come faster.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum