A player with lvl 50 quest priest item.

Discussion forum related to PVP Server.

Re: A player with lvl 50 quest priest item.

by eunichorn » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:06 am

you need to post a bug report on their bug tracker if you want this fixed. otherwise the thread will just fester for a few days before a staff member links you to the 'how to use the bug tracker' thread.
eunichorn
Tester
 

Re: A player with lvl 50 quest priest item.

by wedemboys » Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:55 am

eunichorn wrote:you need to post a bug report on their bug tracker if you want this fixed. otherwise the thread will just fester for a few days before a staff member links you to the 'how to use the bug tracker' thread.
wedemboys
Sergeant
Sergeant
 

Re: A player with lvl 50 quest priest item.

by Bioness » Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:11 pm

Robotron wrote:
gotmilk0112 wrote:
The Shortest Path wrote:Those class quests aren't implemented on this server yet, which means the person in the screenshot used a glitch to access it and is thus breaking the rules.


Really? Huh. If the quest isn't even implemented, how the hell did he get it? Some kind of hack or data exploit?

That, or they simply forgot to disable certain quests, which would allow him to obtain it without doing anything sneaky.

For example, Desert Dumplings (20 Str food) aren't supposed to be in the game until AQ. I, along with a multitude of other players, did the quest with no problem at all because it wasn't disabled and were using the food until the AV patch. During that patch, the devs realized their mistake and removed Sandworm Meat from the game, deleted the recipe from our cookbooks, took out the quests, and made all existing Dumplings not work.


Funny they will do all that over a recipe but won't do a god damn thing about the people who got Exalted in Alterac Valley during the first two days of release.
User avatar
Bioness
Knight-Lieutenant
Knight-Lieutenant
 

Re: A player with lvl 50 quest priest item.

by Arael » Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:33 pm

The quest was in game, I was doing it too.

But I been unlucky, because devs "realized" it shouldn't be there right when I was doing it.

Those lucky enough did it before this "choice".
User avatar
Arael
Senior Sergeant
Senior Sergeant
 

Re: A player with lvl 50 quest priest item.

by The Shortest Path » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:30 pm

That's because it's entirely possible to obtain exalted in AV in two days.
The Shortest Path
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 

Re: A player with lvl 50 quest priest item.

by gotmilk0112 » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:41 pm

Arael wrote:The quest was in game, I was doing it too.

But I been unlucky, because devs "realized" it shouldn't be there right when I was doing it.

Those lucky enough did it before this "choice".


So they disabled the quest but didn't take away the items from people who completed the quest?

:|
knotic wrote:wait this is 2015. blizzard didnt do this in 2015. year is non-blizzlike omg omg
gotmilk0112
Stone Guard
Stone Guard
 

Re: A player with lvl 50 quest priest item.

by Bioness » Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:02 pm

The Shortest Path wrote:That's because it's entirely possible to obtain exalted in AV in two days.


I talking about the ones who got it within 4-8 hours, not someone who could get it by playing for 40-60 hours straight.
User avatar
Bioness
Knight-Lieutenant
Knight-Lieutenant
 

Re: A player with lvl 50 quest priest item.

by Sakenfor » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:44 am

The list of players with prayer beads on realmplayers shows that someone obtained it some day ago, unless I am not reading it right?
Sakenfor
Tester
 

Re: A player with lvl 50 quest priest item.

by Askental » Mon Aug 03, 2015 12:30 pm

Sakenfor wrote:The list of players with prayer beads on realmplayers shows that someone obtained it some day ago, unless I am not reading it right?


You're reading right, but actually it's only showing when this person was seen with the item equipped, which is not exactly the same. Bags content can not be seen by realmplayers...
Image
User avatar
Askental
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 

Previous

Return to PVP Server Specific discussion