If you've ever tried to do an instance below or above your level, you know the problem here: the summoning stones outside instances are pretty picky in terms of who they'll summon. This came up for me when a group of us 70s tried to run the Horseman over Hallow's End-- the summoning stone outside Scarlet Monastery wouldn't let us summon each other, claiming we were too high for the instance.But here's the kicker: Bornakk not only says that there are no plans to change things, but that the reason for not changing them is because Blizzard doesn't want to support higher levels running lower instances, and vice versa. They figure that if you're going to cheat the system like that, you can come up with your own transportation.
But here's the deal: I pay my $15 a month. I should be able to play the game however I'd like. If I want to, as a higher-level character, run my friends through on their lowbie alts (or even solo), as long as it's not actually cheating, I should have the opportunity to do that. Not to mention that, as I said, there are legit reasons to summon people to the stones at those levels anyway-- during holidays, and just as general transportation around the world.
"Because we don't like you doing it" is not a valid reason to have these limits on the summoning stones. If Blizzard really didn't want us running the instances in this way, they'd shut the instances off completely to people outside the level range. Either make it clear you don't want higher levels in there, or get out of our way and let us play the game however we want.
Subscribe
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
12-05-2007 @ 6:12PM
Michel said...
too much easy transportation will simply destroy the value of the "world" and by it the immersion and soon the fun and so the success of the game.
they have to be cautious with teleportation and stuff
they did the stone to help people to get a Group for an instance, because waiting people is not fun
but it's not a cheap way to trick mount, time travel and so on; it's a trick to form a group rapidly and do the instance.
--
your money, their games, so you should have ultimate control
no.
ours games, THE rules !
I understand your point, but even a limitation upon stone is in fact a formal rule of the game, enforced by game mechanic.
break the rule so it could be funnier , it could also whack the game and ruin it speedier you think.
I favor what blizzard think is best. they know the numbers, they know how many players do that or this , they can choose what is good for the ongoing success of the game (and so the best fun).
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 8:26PM
Mat James said...
I couldn't disagree more, and I must say this post feels like one of the many whiny threads on the forums. Specifically the 'I pay for this, I'm your boss, make the game how I want' part of the post. No one is making you play, if you don't like the dynamic of the subscriber/provider relationship set out by Blizzard, I suggest you try out Gaia online. It's almost as good as WoW.
Perhaps it's because I've been playing the game before summoning stones became a part of the game, or perhaps because I play a lock and stones reduced the ritual of summoning to nothing more than a cute parlor trick, but I've always felt that the summoning stones were kinda 'easy mode'. And the fact that you could summon any level to the Stockades, for example, made them a little ridiculous imho. Please don't misunderstand, the stones have made the game much more convenient in terms of getting raids going and I do appreciate the time saver. But there was something cool, if not arduous, about getting player's to come together from all corners of Azeroth in order to get it done. The level of commitment was much higher when you had to truck your butt across nine 'counties' to get to the raid. And sometimes in the meantime you'd find out that you didn't want that person to come, thus all the better for you.
If I were bossy of Blizzard, or if they magically decide to let ALL their subscribers dictate the features of the game, I'd do away entirely with those ugly-ass stones and you'd have to get your lazy rear there on your own.
But thats just me, one in nine million, and I've still got ritual of summoning. =P
.......less QQ, more pewpew.
Bad Post
12-06-2007 @ 11:55AM
kilrathi said...
Boy i sure don't know how we managed before them fancy summoning stones. They should make a class that can summon people to anywhere in the game. Yea that would be cool. Maybe that class could have a pet at its disposal as well. That sure we be nice.
12-05-2007 @ 6:16PM
Bozworth said...
AMEN!
the level restrictions on the summoning stones is retarded
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:18PM
Janthras said...
I did ZF last night with my lvl 52 shammy. I was a little surprised that I was unable to initiate the summons (You do not meet the requirements...). The same for the LFG tab. ZF was not listed as one of my options.
Granted, I am a bit high level for the instance, but I'm not that far off. All of my quests there were still green. Had they been greyed out, then I could understand not having the access...
Blizzard could still enforce the rules, just make them a little less restrictive.
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:19PM
Bindulax said...
I think it would be to easy to justify anything with an "Hey, I'm paying you for this sh**, so I'm the one telling you what is to be done.."-attitude. That's not the way things work.
I think as it is, WoW has been improving more and more since beta and except for some.. errr.. glitches... and the team is doing a great job balancing the game in a way that makes it fun to play.
On the other hand, try and find a few hundred people who would quit playing if the summoning stones would not be changed (and go though with it), now that might work.. a few months after they quit. :D
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:22PM
TheSporkWithin said...
The $15 a month thing is WoW's version of Godwin's Law. Just like Hitler or the Nazis, as soon as somebody mentions it you know that nothing productive can come of the rest of the thread/post/rant, and that the poster has lost the debate.
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:23PM
mrderekt said...
While reading your post I thought I was back at the WoW forums for a moment. Or maybe Barren's Chat.
QQ---> that way please.
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:25PM
MartinC said...
Sorry, the "I'm paying for this, therefore I should get to decide how it should be implemented" argument is oft-repeated, but still never has any real basis in reality. As has already been said, that's not the way things work. Nobody is *forcing* you to play the game. If you have enough issues with the way the game mechanics works, don't play it. Simple as that.
Personally, I applaud Blizzard on the level restrictions for the summoning stones. I understand why they did it and it makes perfect sense, along with the distance travel and immersion angle.
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:27PM
Polarina said...
"Hey! I pay for this game and I deserve that all my alts are to be pimped immediately to level 70!"
Think like that and no one would play the game. I don't see your point, honestly.
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:30PM
CthulhuCalling said...
You're paying $15/month to play THEIR game. Your money entitles you to play the game, not dictate the rules. If we all got to demand how the game mechanics are, I'd be a warshamagerogpalapriest running around in T6 as a level 1, able to kill Illidan with just a spoon and farts. Nobody's preventing you from running your little brother through RFC, you're just going to have to take a few minutes to actually hoof it there on your elite mount.
Besides, if you're going to solo SM, nobody's going to be summoning you.
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:35PM
Pete Smith said...
I'm with just about everyone in this thread... your post just sounds like an irritable whine with no real substance.
"If I want to, as a higher-level character, run my friends through on their lowbie alts (or even solo), as long as it's not actually cheating, I should have the opportunity to do that."
I mean, dude, you do have the opportunity to do that. You act as if there's no other way to get to the instance or something...
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:37PM
Flurr said...
@ 7+9, complete agreement (and
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:38PM
Brian Arnold said...
Less QQ, more rerolling as a warlock.
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:40PM
Zorggo said...
Ha! Author got pwned.
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:41PM
Al in SoCal said...
I agree 100% - I think it's a lame rule.
I think they should have summoning stones at all major cities and if they don't want to upset warlocks - how about making it possible for them to summon using just 1 other party member instead of 2 others.
I don't understand people that think it would 'destroy' or ruin anything. I think it might spurn people going to more far off places since transportation back and forth would be easier.
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:55PM
runako said...
"I pay my $15 a month. I should be able to play the game however I'd like"
are you 12 years old? what a pathetic waste of the internet
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 7:15PM
Xeren said...
In a way, the $15 a month argument reminds me of the "I can do whatever I want, it's free country" argument.
Both stem from a fundamental lack of understanding about how life works.
12-05-2007 @ 6:59PM
WeirdoKitty said...
It's too bad there was attitude about how owns the game because there are two important points.
1. When a dungeon has multiple level ranges, all ranges should be able to use the summoning stone. It would easy to say that only those in a range can summon those in the same range.
2. Sometimes you fall out of the range even though the dungeon quests are green. Many of learned that going in when quests were yellow was a suicide mission, particularly with Gnomer and Uldaman. The dungeons have been tuned aren't 10 levels higher than some of the trash mobs, but it can still be a good idea to do a dungeon a little latter. Some more tuning in this area may be needed.
Reply
12-05-2007 @ 6:59PM
erisse said...
Um, it wasn't so long ago that you couldn't summon *anyone* with a Meeting Stone (remember? "LF1M BRD, have warlock, can summon"?), and now you're complaining because they're not giving you enough of a free ride? GG.
/agree with #6, this is eerily like the WoW forums.
Reply