Well it has been a bit since my last post and I was planning writing a more detailed post about what and why a Battle.Net Account Bank would be a good feature to add to the game.
I was originally suggesting it to be a feature to help cut down on gold buying. The following 2 links had some initial discussion about ways to cut down on Gold Buying by eliminating some of the reasons that players buy gold. In the end the only real way would be to remove gold from the game or make it bound to account and only usable with vendors, which would essentially remove the AH from the game.
In the mean time Blizzard has added a new item to the 4.1 patch notes that makes this alt-o-holic a happy camper. If the logical extension of all of these changes is actually implemented a very very happy camper but that has yet to be seen or confirmed.
- Many “Account Bound” heirlooms are now labeled as “Battle.net Account Bound”, meaning that they can also be traded or mailed to characters that are on different World of Warcraft accounts under the same Battle.net account.
- Mail sent to characters on the same Battle.net account now arrives instantaneously, as it does for the same World of Warcraft account.
- Mailing account-bound items to characters of the opposite faction on the same Battle.net account will now correctly translate faction-specific items to their appropriate equivalent.
If the mail is still not able to be sent cross server than a good workaround would be a Battle.net account bank, like the Vault you can pay to have available in LotRO. It is one of the really nice features for trading materials between characters since the mail system is a little lacking without some of the mail add ons I use in wow.
Actually they really need to change the AH interface and decouple it with the mail system. It would most likely greatly reduce the overhead on the mailing subsystem. Make a second virtual hold system like the AH that is off market where all of your stuff sits for when you need to pick it up. Also all items you want to auction are dumped there first. By some of the comments in the UI dev Q&A it sounds like there is an overhaul to the AH coming so I will save more comments on what I think is wrong with the current implementation, other than the already existing posts here.
I still think a way hell even if it is an additional service fee like the mobile AH a way to move BoA and base gold/materials between servers would be a great boon. It would give some players an entire new game to play. It would be the world of market craft but letting the players equalize out the value of goods across both high and low population servers would be really cool.
I have started this post several times and end up scrapping it or starting over.
More because unlike most of the time when I complain about something I usually have an idea/suggestion to post concerning the issue. This one I don’t have really have any such thoughts on the subject. I think the reason for my current dilemma comes from several conflicted points of view on the subject in general and what could be done about botting.
The reason why I am conflicted on this issue is simple, in all honestly there is a base level of botting needed to keep the in game market somewhat stable. The extent of botting that currently seems to be going on is well past this stabilization point and is now becoming problematic.
This is further compounded by the transition between the “black market” bot users and the “white market” normal AH activity, because there are usually 1 or more layers of players between them moving materials and gold around by trying to make a profit. This is because of how much trading actually can come out of trade chat.
If someone is trying to liquidate 10-100 stacks of some material most players could justify it as a fluke or good deal once, maybe even twice depending upon the time between transactions. However if you work out a supply arrangement with someone and they start to supply you with 100+ stacks a week on top of tons of volatiles you then start to wonder how they are farming so much. Here is where the dilemma begins, depending upon spawn rate, concentration of nodes and competition over said nodes it could be evaluated if the amount is reasonable given an almost exclusive farmer. The issue is we don’t know what is actually reasonable and what is not, we can guess but there has been no real definitive quantification on what the average player could be expected to farm in a unit of time.
So what you then have is a “grey market” of players who are out for profits as gold is the only true thing worth anything in WoW since everything else deflates to worthlessness over time.
Given that blizzard could have near perfect information on the various transactions that occur between players through many means if enough extensive data mining was done most botters should become relatively easy to identify. The dumb ones will just list their wares directly on the AH flooding the market and destructively devaluing everything for everyone. The intelligent ones, the ones I don’t have a problem with, bark their materials on trade chat and let several layers of player manipulation pad the effect on the market. This is preferred because you will have players with deep pockets or vast gold reserves hedging the market by stockpiling resources between patches based upon current price and demand.
Like I said I don’t really have any idea on what really should be done overall for this issue I have ideas on how to treat some of the effects but they fit better with a different post.
There is additional failures on part of the playerbase and guild ranking websites but those can be traced back to the entirety of Blizzards implementation of Tier 11 raiding.
The difficulty and tuning has been analyzed to death so I will not get into that flame war quagmire. IMO I think some encounters are tuned a little too tightly but it looks like our guild will be able to clear all the normal mode bosses before the next tier of content.
So what am I talking about when saying that Blizzard failed on achievements and reporting. Well it is simple. There is no way to differentiate a boss kill on 10 or 25 man mode. More problematic is there are all these new guild bonuses and statistics but not information on boss-kills at the guild level or I should say what is there is extremely lacking.
In this new guild and content era where there are now stiff penalties for switching guilds in the form of loss of guild reputation if players are going to change guilds there is more information needed so that players can evaluate a guild.
For each tier of content there should be a chart with the following information in it of course the 80% membership requirement for a guild run will also be a requirement to be recognized for this information.
Total Number of Kills
Since this information would be available in XML the guild ranking/progression sites could then aggregate the information, that is a service that ultimately should be hosted on Blizzards services so that there is 1 official always up-to-date source but that is an issue for another time. I would just be happy that Blizzard provide the information needed to accurately provide this service to the player base.
One of the dimensions that I really think that the progress sites get wrong is that they do not consider the total number of kills, all that matters is the first kill. I am more impressed with a guild that consistently get 6/12 down every week than the guild that gets 4 boss kills because they want to push for that one new boss kill just to get ahead of the competition due to how the progression sites are overly concerned about first kill.
Anyway the more information the better. I think it would help our guild overall in the long run and will hopefully highlight some of the early lemmings that pushed far and fast and then fell apart afterward. Why are they still high on the rankings if they have not had a new or consistent kill rate.
Anyway I am sure the information I wish was displayed is available for Tier11 and I hope the armory will be updated to support such information for Tier 12 in patch 4.2.