Yeah Blizzard, please DON'T limit the addon messages

They can go play other games!

/s

[the attitude of some people here…]

People dont care until it affects them.

:dracthyr_shrug:

3 Likes

We’re asking specifically how RP addons break your combat.

The boss didn’t acknowledge their 40 magical wards and oneshotted them, reported + blocked for god emoting. :wink:

1 Like

Silly question, especially in light of what the OP says. Obviously they’re not trying to kill RP addons specifically, they’re trying to kill the combat addons.

They are using the same functionality that the combat addons do. Can’t break one without the other.

It doesn’t break all RP addons - it just breaks the way that addon is written. Write it differently.

Or Blizzard could just add something official from their side for us Roleplayers. Something they really didn’t since years.

Imagine if we wouldn’t even need TRP3 because a similar, good enough alternative is already delivered with the game…

I really disagree on that. ESO doesn’t even have the characters moving when typing something with /say. Unlike WoW.

Also, I tried out to Roleplay with people in ESO. Some even go so far and want to RP with voice chat instead of text. Yeah, good luck trying to RP a woman as a man then without feeling cringe.

Indeed.

Sadly, a very human practice.

Good one :smiley:

1 Like

Issue with that is…

Its not WoW. I dont want to roleplay in the world of ESO. I want to do it in Azeroth.

1 Like

I mean this is a fair point. Until I became disabled it simply didn’t come to mind, it’s not something that affects me in WoW either, I just feel a small sense of duty to point it out because I know that people don’t naturally think of that. Including Blizzard.

1 Like

I mean yeah it is a point but I feel like thinking about others too and not just yourself is like… basic stuff ?

Like if I know something would make it worse for another person, but not affect me in the slightest… I’d still be against it y’know ?

1 Like

It’s not a silly question, especially with the following statement:

So, answer the question.
How does RP break combat? Your RP addons even have flags to NOT run/communicate during instance/combat.

To save you from the devils advocate, they essentially mean that seen as this action stops combat addons from communicating with each other and the server as effectively they believe this is a good change, even though the RP community is going to be heavily damaged by it.

They think the process of developing addons of such scale is simple and that the hobbyists who keep players actively engaged with the game should completely rebuild addons to work around the broad swings of a company with enough money and resources to find more elegant solutions.

In short, they’re selfish.

1 Like

WoW’s UI is pretty bad sure, but they still need to kill this functionality for addons imo.

But yeah, totally. I don’t mind RP functionality at all.

Yes, silly question.

I do not understand how it cannot be clearly understood that the needs of a particularly RP addon is something that breaks combat, and that therefore keeping it like this means allowing RP’ers to have functionality that kills combat, therefore in short RP’ing is killing combat.

It should not be kept for RP if it breaks combat. We need another way.

Lol. And the people who insist on keeping functionality in the game that’s destroying the core gameplay experience for basically the entire playerbase, including RP’ers whenever they’re not RP’ing, are not selfish?

Memelord detected.

Read. Blizzard are a company that could find better solutions for this if they wanted to. The community should be focused on building each other up and ensuring all aspects of the game are accessible, not stomping others down.

Let me reword your initial response to this thread:

“While this is a good change for those of us who don’t enjoy the amount of automation in the game due to the way that combat addons communicate with each other, it’s a shame that the RP community will suffer for it and I hope Blizzard can find a better solution.”

Much better.

1 Like

Sadly it is not for a lot of people. Sometimes it is just ignorance though and people don’t mean it, it simply doesn’t occur to them.

I completely agree they should add more RP focused capabilities to the game and I wrote that in the post you quoted though not in reply to you, but that does not mean I agree that this is a bad solution. These RP focused capabilities should come in addition to this, not in place of it. Therefore I do not agree with

While this is a good change for those of us who don’t enjoy the amount of automation in the game due to the way that combat addons communicate with each other, it’s a shame that the RP community will suffer for it and I hope Blizzard can find a better solution.

So, if the problem is things that combat addons do…why don’t just restrict this type of communications while it combat? WOW Lua API is full of things that only works out of combat.

Or maybe go beyond that and start aplying restrictions in the Lua API while inside content like M+, Hight level raids, arenas and BGs.

1 Like

I think this thread is going round in circles now.

That’s also something I wonder… Why just not disable/limit the traffic while in certain play conditions like combat… It sounds like the most common sense solution out there…

1 Like

Your explanation still doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever.

A exists because of C, B exists beacuse of C. A is good, B is bad. B affects way more people and far more negatively than A has good influence in terms of people and intensity. Therefore, A must be sacrificed in order to mitigate B by removing C. There appears to be no alternative to removing C.

A can be recovered by implementing a different system, and should be.

In this explanation, A is the RP addon, B is automation, and C is addons communicating with one another.

I believe what’s happening here is RP’ers wanting the tail to wag the dog.

I can’t simplify it more than that. If you still don’t get it, I give up. Not saying it’s your fault or my fault, I just can’t.