Roderlay

(POLL) final step to solve exploited's easter event

Remove gear from people who bought exagerated amounts of lootboxes in April 1st   151 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think that gear from lootboxes bought by exagerated amount of exploited loyalty points in April 1st should be removed? Leave a comment below.


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

34 posts in this topic

 I mean the ones who got like 40 boxes should be considered as exploited but realy who cares i mean 7.3.5 is just around the corner and that gear wont be so useful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Roderlay
I understand you are frustrated about it and it's not easy to see people taking advantage over a bug. 
We were reasonable and we wouldn't simply remove everything from those who bought loot boxes. How can you tell those who bought them with the exploited points, and those who had the points previously in the account? This is more complex than that, and we cannot verify every single case to know who was honest and who exploited. And that is why we found "the middle term" and tried to balance things as much as we could.
I believe that awarding players who didn't exploit with 300 points was a good compensation. 
Regards,

Yashirou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should if only if they did so beyond acceptable amount. For people who did less than 3k for example,  shouldn't be punished the same way as people who spend hours abusing the event. 

Since the reset of the points, Firestorm has actually taken LP points of me that I had before the event. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yashirou said:

@Roderlay
I understand you are frustrated about it and it's not easy to see people taking advantage over a bug. 
We were reasonable and we wouldn't simply remove everything from those who bought loot boxes. How can you tell those who bought them with the exploited points, and those who had the points previously in the account? This is more complex than that, and we cannot verify every single case to know who was honest and who exploited. And that is why we found "the middle term" and tried to balance things as much as we could.
I believe that awarding players who didn't exploit with 300 points was a good compensation. 
Regards,

Yashirou.

then were are mine 300 bonus +200 i got before event !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remove the items that people got from lootboxes, because today on my main and my alt both keys were broken by 890s who didn't attend a mythic before. Why did I grind 6+ hours of WoW daily for 4-5 months now? I learned rotation and everythig for my character to have top dps and now newbies with 10+ ilvl higher than mine gear will go to NH HC instead of me for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Woopie said:

I think they should if only if they did so beyond acceptable amount. For people who did less than 3k for example,  shouldn't be punished the same way as people who spend hours abusing the event. 

Since the reset of the points, Firestorm has actually taken LP points of me that I had before the event. 

 

For some moments i was also thinking about the amount, yeah. I mean, spending crazy amounts of LP like some players did (25-30k) is just too gross to be acceptable, even if it was mistake from the event's development, in such cases some pruning must be applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, If they have a problem ( as mentioned above) with knowing who did and didn't go over the mark then go an set a mark. Anyone above 3k on the 1st of April should have the items retracted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it this way, if you had 30 eggs, even the luckiest person would get 3k LP. Make that a mark. anyone who went above 3k has their items taken away. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.