Patch 2.2 AH mails

#0 - Sept. 25, 2007, 6:45 p.m.
Blizzard Post
We have an on-going discussion at work today about one line in the patch notes for today. Perhaps someone could enlighten us. The line is "Auction House generated emails for successful auction sales will now have a one-hour delay and is no longer instantaneous." Some of us read this as only sales are affected and the gold being sent is delayed by 1 hour. Others believe it is all mails from the AH, so items and gold both will be delayed by 1 hour. Which is correct?

TIA,
Azshis
#9 - Sept. 25, 2007, 7:15 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
The buyer gets the item instantly.

The seller must wait one hour for the payment.


This is correct.


Edit: To clarify, all items and monies provided and returned per Auction House transactions--save that of successful sales--will remain instantaneous. This includes item expirations, purchases, and outbids.
#43 - Sept. 25, 2007, 9:18 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
Can we please stop putting bandaids on things?


The cure you seek is one only players can provide, Evol. The wound--to continue with your analogy--will heal when the hand that feeds ceases its involvement, rendering such advertisements and activity moot.

Just a thought.
#48 - Sept. 25, 2007, 9:35 p.m.
Blizzard Post
I propose this:

What if we disabled notifications for successful Auction House sales? Would you be the wiser of the delay? Would it, at that point, still hinder your progress in-game?

What is the difference between selling an item in four hours and waiting an hour for the gold to reach your mailbox and selling an item in five hours and receiving the boost to your purse instantaneously?

Discuss.
#50 - Sept. 25, 2007, 9:40 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
Exactly. Volume gold-sellers aren't going to care.


I assure you, the impact is far greater than you can imagine.
#101 - Sept. 26, 2007, 12:03 a.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
Please explain how, because mathematically it just doesn't work. I can only assume there is some aspect of this new policy that I am unaware of.


Q u o t e:
Then explain it.


If you have posed these questions seeking physical data--numbers, charts, or pictorial representations by which to demonstrate or illustrate the point at hand--I am afraid you will be left unsatisfied. I feel it obvious that to divulge any manner of internal information at this point in time would be not only unwise, but extremely counterproductive to any sort of progress we may make against those who wish to exploit our economy. I understand you desire relevance, proof of why such a decision has been made; regrettably, it cannot--nor will not--be provided at this juncture.

As unfortunate and undesirable as it may be, you will have to take my assurances on the matter; however, I suspect you already have realized this and have considered using it as a springboard to further your stance. This is fine; I recognize your concerns and I apologize for being unable to quantify our decisions with read-outs and print-outs and statistics a-plenty. Be that as it may, if you have thus far been unable to surmise the intent of this particular endeavor, I do not believe any grand display of relative data will sway your opinion.

This all said, I believe your considerations to be valuable, Pinkshadow (Azazrael, Vimar, Evol, and the like) and while I appreciate the debate, you and I both know that any suggestions to contrary belong in a separate location. If you feel this choice to be counterintuitive, please pursue change through the proper channels--a trite recommendation, perhaps, though sincere and apt, nonetheless.

I wish you luck.
#105 - Sept. 26, 2007, 12:15 a.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
Syndri, dont you ever just feel like saying "Guess what, we make the rules, this is how it is, if you dont like it, piss off" ??


No. No, not really.

It's not difficult to understand the stress or concern caused by this particular change. I possess an opinion contrary to that of the public, yes; though I realize this may well be due to being privy to statistics and concepts that others--you, the players--are not. While the direction of current reaction--that of climbing Slippery Slopes--may ultimately be a bit unreasonable, it is not unexpected, nor counterintuitive to that of someone wishing only for smooth, unhindered game play.

This debate is harmless, albeit perhaps in the wrong locale. :)
#111 - Sept. 26, 2007, 12:31 a.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
Edit: Didn't you tell us to discuss here Syndri? I'm moving it to the suggestions forums, but... yea.


Aye. Discussion and debate is well-fitted here; however, any suggestions on how to improve the system are better served within your new thread. :)
#164 - Sept. 26, 2007, 5:10 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
you really have no idea what you are talking about do you.


Please pardon my frankness, but do you believe you have a full understanding of the economy as a whole? While it is not unreasonable to establish theories and conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence and personal experience, it is a bit bold to assume that you--without holistic knowledge of the matter on which you are so absolutely focused--can possess more of an idea than your peers.
#177 - Sept. 26, 2007, 6:31 p.m.
Blizzard Post
I never dismissed the concerns expressed herein, Monsoon; my comment was targeted specifically at claims that such an endeavor would ultimately prove fruitless in terms of counteraction. Without prior or working knowledge of the system (and the impact exploitation or attempts at exploitation may have), it is unreasonable to deduce that any recent changes to in-game mechanics are, on the whole, moot.

It's a matter of perspective. While I am not discounting any personal grievances or opinions you may have to the contrary, I am pointing out that making claims without proper evidence--at this point in time--benefits no one.

My apologies for any confusion or misinterpretation. :)
#193 - Sept. 26, 2007, 9:13 p.m.
Blizzard Post
I don't parrot. I cockatiel.
#205 - Sept. 26, 2007, 10:20 p.m.
Blizzard Post
While it is, in fact, unfortunate that we must take such measures to counter exploitative activity in-game, these measures--although placing a relative inconvenience upon legitimate players--are not, in point of fact, Horsemen of the apocalypse. You may champion the notion indefinitely, heralding this decision as a sign "of things to come" and urging others to believe that Blizzard Entertainment wants naught but to penalize the undeserving, but you would be wrong. These decisions (that of modifying both in-game mailing and Auction House systems) are not indicative of a desire to remove the "MM" from MMORPG; rather, they are simply means by which to gain an edge over the unscrupulous endeavors currently challenging the integrity of World of Warcraft.

It is a permanent resolution? No; such resolution ultimately lies in the hands of those who further such unwanted activity by flooding the market with eager customers. It is, however, a step in the right direction.
#238 - Sept. 27, 2007, 7:11 a.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
Yes, the answer will be that they're incompetent. I had epics up for auction, and I had 613g when I put them up. One item sold, a shadow pearl, and I received my 26g or whatever for it, and now I have 640g, so where are my items and the rest of my gold if those items sold? They're certainly not in my mailbox, bags or bank.


in·com·pe·tent: not competent; lacking qualification or ability; incapable

I don't think that means what you think it means...Inconceivable?

Since if you had decided to petition of one Game Masters they might have been able to tell you that your missing epics certainly are not in your mailbox, bags or bank but are sitting on the Auction House.

9/26 06:31:57 Robes of Insight - Still on the Auction House
9/26 06:32:19 Formula: Smoking Heart of the Mountain - Still on the Auction House
9/26 06:39:41 Jagged Pearl - Still on the Auction House
9/26 06:40:25 Shadow Pearl - Sold 9/26 19:27:08 28gold 22 silver 50 copper
9/26 06:58:32 Design: Ruby Serpent - Still on the Auction House

9/27 02:18:15 26 gold 87 silver 38 copper taken from mail for Shadow Pearl sale

:)
#241 - Sept. 27, 2007, 7:21 a.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:


How long were they initially placed for? And how long ago?


They were placed at the times that I listed and given that it is nearly 6:20 GMT, which is what those times are, I expect they should be sent to his mailbox fairly soon as the 24 hour sale is just about up.
#243 - Sept. 27, 2007, 7:48 a.m.
Blizzard Post
It is unlikely, without some kind of addon interference, that something like this would happen but for the sake of argument....

If something like that happened we would have received hundreds of reports regarding it, if this occurred the issue would be forwarded to our Quality Assurance Team for further testing and resolution.