17 Jun, 2012, Runter wrote in the 81st comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
I don't really see how Blizzard could stop you. Not do I see why they'd want to.

The security policy is primarily there to protect them from a legal perspective. As long as they're transferring the money to verified accounts, I don't think they care what happens to it afterwards.


I dont think so. They're also very concerned with keeping gold farmers from an avenue to transfer money from the game. You're not allowed to professionally use the RMAH. Not allowed to use it as an investment avenue, not allowed a lot of commercial things. Players from outside of the region transferring money is a red flag. So someone like me would definitely set off a red flag when I'm in asia trying to transfer money marked as a US account. If they allowed this then all the gold farmers would need to do is have one single legit account to funnel their money through to checkout. Well, if it were legit. But I'm saying it's not. Also there's parts of the terms of use that says "cannot bid on own auctions." I'd argue that this is a derivative of that.
17 Jun, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 82nd comment:
Votes: 0
But what are they going to? Ban you for buying an item at a price they consider too high? For trading with the same person multiple times? For selling gear to someone on your friends list?

The only way they could stop it would be to split Bizzard Bucks and PayPal into two separate auction systems, the same way they do for different currencies. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they did exactly that.
17 Jun, 2012, plamzi wrote in the 83rd comment:
Votes: 0
I got totally sick of the game at level 40 monk / 28 Wizard, but it did inspire me to finish a major end-game extension: http://tinyurl.com/79sxfc7

Since I dislike class-restricted and level-restricted items, I flagged each magical property individually, which means that some of them can apply only to some players or player types. That way the item is still useful to others, just not to its full potential.

A usability thing I'll probably want to "steal" fairly soon is an automated item compare mode. Am I imagining this or is the D3 compare mode unable to calculate properly when you have, say, a 1-handed + shield equipped and you hover on a 2-handed? Also, I know I can press ALT to compare with "ring slot #2", but is there a way to compare with what my follower has equipped? I'm annoyed enough by that un-formatted message when you try to drop an item your follower can't use… It just seems like for a game that cost a ton of money to develop, they could have left fewer rough edges.
17 Jun, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 84th comment:
Votes: 0
Just read this: South Korea bans virtual item trading, D...

But more interesting was this comment about botting:

Quote
A separate, but related, law has also been passed that bans the use of gold/item farming bots in online-enabled games. Players found using programs that allow in-game characters to hunt and collect items without the need of a player controlling them will be made illegal and blocked from internet access.

The punishment for breaking the law will be a 50 million won fine (27,612) and a maximum jail sentence of five years.
17 Jun, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 85th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
A usability thing I'll probably want to "steal" fairly soon is an automated item compare mode.

The D3 item comparison is pretty nice, and could be done fairly easily with a custom GUI, but it wouldn't work so well with complex equipment mechanics.

I like the idea of embedding item hyperlinks though, that could be a useful addition for muds with auction channels.
17 Jun, 2012, Runter wrote in the 86th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
But what are they going to? Ban you for buying an item at a price they consider too high? For trading with the same person multiple times? For selling gear to someone on your friends list?

The only way they could stop it would be to split Bizzard Bucks and PayPal into two separate auction systems, the same way they do for different currencies. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they did exactly that.


Lol, Well I decided to go ahead and do this since I thought the risks were minimal. Here's what happened a few hours later:

17 Jun, 2012, Runter wrote in the 87th comment:
Votes: 0




Oh, and exactly what I did is my friend put up an auction of a relatively mundane rare level 60 item, something worth like 5-10,000 gold market value if I had to guess, with a buyout of 50 dollars. I bought it. After a few hours on review I got logged off my account with violation message, and email in box. So I don't have much information about their rationale for why I'm banned, but hopefully I'll know more soon when my ticket is answered. Maybe it's just a routine security thing since my payment option is from US and my IP is singapore. Guess we will see.
17 Jun, 2012, plamzi wrote in the 88th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
plamzi said:
A usability thing I'll probably want to "steal" fairly soon is an automated item compare mode.

The D3 item comparison is pretty nice, and could be done fairly easily with a custom GUI, but it wouldn't work so well with complex equipment mechanics.

I like the idea of embedding item hyperlinks though, that could be a useful addition for muds with auction channels.


It's one of those features that can be a sinkhole of hours if you want to please power players. But I think even something basic would help beginners, like a brief summary after they examine an item informing them if they'll lose or gain AC, basic stats, dam and hit chance. Advanced players will always rely on experience far more than anything you can code in, but even for them this can be useful as a top-level filter that helps them discard certain items faster.

I'm not crazy about embedding links unless the info is also accessible in plain-text mode as well, or as a tooltip in a web client. It seems to me that compare should be instant, not a clickthrough.
17 Jun, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 89th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Maybe it's just a routine security thing since my payment option is from US and my IP is singapore. Guess we will see.

I tried googling for "error 318003", it looks like a lot of people are having the same issue, eg:

Everyone who has been banned for the RMA...

Banned for 25 years???

People who used RMAH & got banned, S...

Error 318003: UPDATED I can fix this for...

It seems to be related to making a purchase from certain locations. Not sure if it's using geolocation, or just basing it on where you purchased the game. Sadly I've failed to sell anything for real cash yet, so I've not been able to test it.

I ran into a similar problem with Steam, but they just blocked the transaction, they didn't ban me for it.

EDIT: From the EU forum: Banned for buying items

Quote
Reason for being banned: I am residing in a diffrent country so the system thought i was a hacker. Diffrent IP.

Solutions: Buy an authenticator or install a smartphone APP that does the same job.Change the country before you travel somewhere, it is quite a long process so start early and you need an official document.


EDIT: Also noticed this: Getting battle.net balance into cash, EU

An MVP confirms that you can indeed transfer money to a friend by purchasing their gear.

plamzi said:
I'm not crazy about embedding links unless the info is also accessible in plain-text mode as well, or as a tooltip in a web client. It seems to me that compare should be instant, not a clickthrough.

You can have mouseover or clickable text with MXP. If you want the same information for basic telnet clients then you could provide them with a code they can type in.
17 Jun, 2012, Runter wrote in the 90th comment:
Votes: 0
I tried to call them but it said they have no room in queue. I submitted a ticket, but I think it'll take a while. This is very annoying because all I did was use the ingame balance I accumulated. Other people are talking about trying to buy an item with card/paypal. Oh well, guess I'm taking a few days break from the game until they can get this mess straightened out.
17 Jun, 2012, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 91st comment:
Votes: 0
to Plamzi: you cannot compare items related to other in a set on a simple basis without heavy computer power/or very simple items. (few modifiers)

Basically the number of combination between different set of items (especially considering the number of location you can have in a mud, (like 20 in average, and not even start couting the number of modifiers) is way to huge. (basically after 6-7 locations it starts to really explode, I coded a program that does it to help balance item on my mud, 4gig memory is not enough..not to mention it struggles with a q8200)
So you can only compare item to item and that is pretty easily done. Save stat, wear the item (virtually) compare stats, and show only the differences. And you can show the result by the method you want. (either hovering through a mxp link, or just show the text)

found the math explanation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_pr...

About Diablo 3:just boycott the game…agreeing to have to be connected to play solo is making yourself their bitch…(and not even mentioning all the problems the server and their policies have in themself)
18 Jun, 2012, Runter wrote in the 92nd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
About Diablo 3:just boycott the game…agreeing to have to be connected to play solo is making yourself their bitch…


Yes, because your mud has a single player mode that players can play offline and bring the gold/goods/whatever into the online version, amiright? Just because diablo2 did it doesn't mean it was the right decision. The box for diablo3 clearly says it's an online game. I have a lot of complaints about diablo3 but this definitely is not one of them.
18 Jun, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 93rd comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Yes, because your mud has a single player mode that players can play offline and bring the gold/goods/whatever into the online version, amiright?

MUDs, by their very definition, are not single player games. Diablo III can be played as either single player or multiplayer (with up to 3 friends), but it is not a MUD/MMO, and the reasons for the online-only restriction have nothing to do with the gameplay.

Despite that, I wouldn't mind it so much if it wasn't for the excessive amount of maintenance, disconnections, lag, bugs and spammers. Diablo III suffers the drawbacks of an MMO without the benefits.

In regard to the earlier issue: Is this legal in RMAH?

Quote
I accidentally used Blizz's "funbucks" for depositing a couple items I sold (one for $250 and another for $150). I submitted a ticket asking if they can help get my funds out since I didn't intend to use their somewhat shady "USD" "$" designated funbucks.

I got a response apologizing and telling me there isn't a way to withdraw funds. I flat out told the CSR that there is a way, and I described exactly how I would have my girlfriend post an item on AH and I'd buy it from her and she'd have it deposited to her paypal and then send it back to me.

This is the response they gave:

Thank you for contacting Blizzard Entertainment.

Hello XXX,

That would work as far as getting the money out of the battlenet balance. Anything else we can assist with please let us know.

Sincerely,

XXX
Account and Technical Services
Blizzard Entertainment
18 Jun, 2012, Runter wrote in the 94th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
MUDs, by their very definition, are not single player games. Diablo III can be played as either single player or multiplayer (with up to 3 friends), but it is not a MUD/MMO, and the reasons for the online-only restriction have nothing to do with the gameplay.


I disagree completely. Even when you play diablo 3 solo it's an online game. As evidenced that the items and progress you make are cumulative towards that. That you're logged into the system and can chat with other players, make deals, access the AH, and a variety of other things. The distinction between playing with yourself and with others is only cosmetic in diablo 3. The single player mode *relies* on being connected to the server. The single player game itself is basically an instance for one person. You can disagree with if it should be, but that's how it is technically. And I would argue if you allow your players on a mud to do dungeons by themselves, and you support this notion that D3 is flawed because of the online requirement, then you are not following your own prescription if you don't allow your players to play offline and bring the items and achievements back into the online game. Actually, it sounds pretty absurd when you say it like that, so I guess you'd just be reasonable if you didn't do that.

Just to be clear, things like repair costs, item drops, damage from npcs, all these things are calculated on the server and validated on the server. Diablo 2 didn't do this, it's a major technical distinction and by which you can determine that it's an online game vs offline. It's not just DRM.
18 Jun, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 95th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Even when you play diablo 3 solo it's an online game.

Yes, but the "online-only restriction have nothing to do with the gameplay". It would be possible to offer the same gameplay offline. In fact that's exactly what Diablo II did, you could play online using Battle.net, or with a LAN or direction connection, or simply offline.

Runter said:
That you're logged into the system and can chat with other players, make eals, access the AH, and a variety of other things.

You need to be online to globally chat, but chat doesn't impact the gameplay. You need to be online to access to the auction house, but that's actually separate from the game (in fact you can't even access it while playing) and can be ignored without impacting the gameplay.

Runter said:
The single player game itself is basically an instance for one person.

All single-player computer games are basically an instance for one person. Load up Solitaire and you'll be playing your own instance. Whether you can run that instance on your own computer (like Diablo II) or are required to run it on a server provided by the game owner (like Diablo III) has nothing to do with the gameplay.

Runter said:
And I would argue if you allow your players on a mud to do dungeons by themselves, and you support this notion that D3 is flawed because of the online requirement, then you are not following your own prescription if you don't allow your players to play offline and bring the items and achievements back into the online game.

There is a huge difference between having instanced locations within a shared, persistent virtual world, and having the entire world instanced for each player for the duration of their game. WoW may be a graphical mud, but Diablo III is a graphical roguelike.

Furthermore, at no point did I ever suggest allowing people to bring items and achievements earned offline into their online games. That is obviously a flawed idea, and it's also one that was solved 12 years ago by Diablo II: Offline characters cannot play with online characters, in exactly the same way as normal characters cannot play with hardcore characters. Diablo III retained the latter, but not the former.

Runter said:
Just to be clear, things like repair costs, item drops, damage from npcs, all these things are calculated on the server and validated on the server.

And the reasons for doing so have nothing to do with gameplay. There is no technical reason why Diablo III couldn't have an offline mode (in fact some people have already created a server emulator). The game is online-only because it gives Blizzard more control.
18 Jun, 2012, Runter wrote in the 96th comment:
Votes: 0
You say the solution is not allowing items to be brought over from your offline experience into your online experience. That sounds like a terrible idea, and an incentive to keep people from using the online version when they've invested so much time offline (which most people do their first playthrough.) Then on top of that, they'd have to maintain duplicate processes and code mechanisms on the front end for offline games. That's a technical reason. Or they'd have to ship some kind of server to run offline to connect the client to. That's a technical reason. Maintaining duplicate processes in multiple languages and ensuring it all works exactly the same is a headache. That's a technical reason. Or limiting yourself to all C++ so you can reuse the code, that's a technical reason. If I were making the design decision I wouldn't have included an offline version of the game for those reasons alone. I don't even need to take into account the obvious benefits of using accounts as DRM.

When people reduce the argument down to basically claiming there's no technical reason, and that blizzard is just intentionally disabling offline play, that's nonsense. There is a real development-debt behind it that must be paid and it's substantial. I suspect that's a lesson blizzard learned from diablo 2, actually.
18 Jun, 2012, Runter wrote in the 97th comment:
Votes: 0
I thought I'd mention that I got my account unlocked but it took me almost 3 hours on the phone with customer service. And i had to call them many times throughout the day before I even got into their queue. They said it was because I was in singapore. I asked the guy if I could use a vpn to get around their security system, and after a long pause he said yes. Lol. Uncomfortable moment. I really don't know what they're thinking. This system only bans legitimate players. Anybody overseas that is trying to shuffle substantial funds or hack knows to use a vpn of some kind. It just has to say US on it to be okay. City doesn't even matter.
19 Jun, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 98th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
You say the solution is not allowing items to be brought over from your offline experience into your online experience. That sounds like a terrible idea, and an incentive to keep people from using the online version when they've invested so much time offline (which most people do their first playthrough.)

Well that's matter of perspective. Personally I think it's "terrible" that a single-player game should suffer from horrific lag, repeated disconnections, regular downtime for server maintenance, bizarre and arbitrary bans for no apparent reason, forced client-side language changes, numerous bugs and exploits resulting in lost progress, gold, equipment and even characters, and so on.

However I can also see how it would be "terrible" for Blizzard if people chose to play offline, as that would greatly reduce the amount of money they'd make from the auction house.

Runter said:
Then on top of that, they'd have to maintain duplicate processes and code mechanisms on the front end for offline games.

People have already created D3 server emulators, it wouldn't have required a great deal of effort to include it in the game.

But I never claimed it wouldn't require any additional effort. What I said is that the reasons for being online-only had nothing to do with the gameplay - that it would be perfectly possible to play the game offline. It's not like a MUD where the gameplay is built around a large number of players co-existing in the same persistent virtual world.

As I said before, "The game is online-only because it gives Blizzard more control". It's about politics and money, not gameplay.
19 Jun, 2012, Kayle wrote in the 99th comment:
Votes: 0
Everything at Blizzard is about Politics.
19 Jun, 2012, Markov_AU wrote in the 100th comment:
Votes: 0
I never played D2 online, then again I am not sure I ever beat it either. I've likely put more hours into D3 just because i might be able to earn my money for the game back. I also and mot fond of my friends jumping into my game when I play as the mobs jump in difficulty and tend to kill me when I am not ready for them to be harder.
80.0/168