Could I get banned if I use a transmutation stone with the vigil hat for my other character that is not with the vigil order. The method in question is the same one used for the starting items.
The reason why I ask is it does not fit in the category as an exploit/bug as it’s only a cosmetic effect and nothing more…. Would be nice to get a dev to comment on this as wild speculation I have read and been told about could lead in to been perma banned Please help and thank you in advance for taking the time to look at this
Yes, they are. People are exploiting a bug with the transmutation stone which makes a soulbound item still say soulbound, however can be transfered to other toons, once you use a transmutation stone.
This is an exploit, obviously, since it was not designed that way – as you can clearly see it messes up the item and makes it unsoulbind.
It’s a valid concern to know if we’ll be banned for doing it.
Actually, in a reletivly recent update, they changed it so that the items now say “Accountbound” instead of a glitched “Soulbound”. Take this as you will, but many have assumed that this means they don’t mind it. Especially since this can happen randomly for those that don’t even intend it. I think that any “White” item that is transmuted can make a Soulbound item Accountbound. However, it can even happen when they aren’t.
My personal theory is that it’s a little easter egg. I mean, how many of us have trashed our special starting items without realizing that you cant get anything like them later on? I feel this is great for Necromancers that want their eyes back or other classes who want to try out a cool new look.
WOWOWOWOW, you are not gonna do this are you? They are gonna find you in real life and put you in prison.
More seriously, it’s time to stop asking what’s bannable or not. Just think about it.
Making 10.000 gold by using a repetitive salvaging technic: ban.
Using a glitch to have your moa colored in black instead of pink : no permaban/prison/nuclear bomb coming from Seattle.
Considering people have been doing this since launch and it’s been widely talked about on the forums yet no official response or changes have come from any of it, I’d say they’re ok with it.
It’s purely cosmetic and uses up transmute stones so I really see nothing wrong with it.
It even increases the sell of transmutation stones as it always uses at least 2 of them. For some people, they want to keep high level armor looks for their low level characters throughout the leveling process, and that takes a lot of stones. With more players using trans stones, Anet will earn more money from people buying gems than if the cross character trans doesn’t work.
I recall seeing an Anet post in a thread saying this was fine. Pretty sure. But, yeah, the practice is pervasive and certainly isn’t an exploit that disadvantages other players.
Yes, there was a Dev or CC/Mod post saying this was okay. The obvious reasoning behind this being an acceptable practice is the financial gain for ANet.
So, because it doesn’t benefit you, the player, financially, it’s ok… Anyone else seeing a pattern in what’s ban-worthy and what isn’t?
Hope is the carrot dangled before the draft horse that plods along in the vain attempt to reach it
Yes, there was a Dev or CC/Mod post saying this was okay. The obvious reasoning behind this being an acceptable practice is the financial gain for ANet.
So, because it doesn’t benefit you, the player, financially, it’s ok… Anyone else seeing a pattern in what’s ban-worthy and what isn’t?
They’re running a business. What did you expect? Charity?
Grand Master of The Knights Hospitaller [STJ]
Isle of Janthir – Sylvari Mesmer – Alexandre Le Grande
I’d say the bigger reason is that it is something purely cosmetical. Changing the skin of an item has no effect on the game mechanics, on other players or on the economy in the game nor will it make the game easier or give you an unfair advantage. If you could also transfer stats then it might be another matter but not just for the looks.
Yes, there was a Dev or CC/Mod post saying this was okay. The obvious reasoning behind this being an acceptable practice is the financial gain for ANet.
So, because it doesn’t benefit you, the player, financially, it’s ok… Anyone else seeing a pattern in what’s ban-worthy and what isn’t?
They’re running a business. What did you expect? Charity?
I think you missed the idea behind my post, good sir: I was making an obtuse reference to the recent Snowflake Incident, in which players were banned for using currently existing in-game practices of manufacture/salvage.
I was essentially saying, if you can make money without buying gold from the TP, it’s probably ban-worthy, but because this is not financially motivated, it’s safe.
Hope is the carrot dangled before the draft horse that plods along in the vain attempt to reach it
Used existing in-game practices to knowingly exploit a flaw, one which likely escaped the grasp of the QA team, in order to gain unintended and unnecessary amount of money. Keep in mind, when they have a system where in-game currency can become the same virtual currency bought with real money, it’s only natural that any methods of exploiting the design of the game in order to obtain very large sums of this virtual currency would be shut down in order to protect their interests.
Grand Master of The Knights Hospitaller [STJ]
Isle of Janthir – Sylvari Mesmer – Alexandre Le Grande
Yes, they are. People are exploiting a bug with the transmutation stone which makes a soulbound item still say soulbound, however can be transfered to other toons, once you use a transmutation stone.
This is an exploit, obviously, since it was not designed that way – as you can clearly see it messes up the item and makes it unsoulbind.
It’s a valid concern to know if we’ll be banned for doing it.
Ok, I gotcha, PowerCat. This really seems like a big problem then.
Edit:
Personally, I wouldn’t ban people over this particular one, but ArenaNET really should get off their butts and fix it now.
As I and many have posted above, this “exploit” is not a big problem. It doesn’t give players an advantage in gameplay over others. It’s purely cosmetic, furthermore, it boosts Anet’s gem sell, it’s only profitable for them, not the players. The chances of them making it a feature is larger than that of them fixing it.
Yes, there was a Dev or CC/Mod post saying this was okay. The obvious reasoning behind this being an acceptable practice is the financial gain for ANet.
So, because it doesn’t benefit you, the player, financially, it’s ok… Anyone else seeing a pattern in what’s ban-worthy and what isn’t?
They’re running a business. What did you expect? Charity?
I think you missed the idea behind my post, good sir: I was making an obtuse reference to the recent Snowflake Incident, in which players were banned for using currently existing in-game practices of manufacture/salvage.
I was essentially saying, if you can make money without buying gold from the TP, it’s probably ban-worthy, but because this is not financially motivated, it’s safe.
What are you even talking about ? My last char reached cap with almost 20G to spent (I don’t craft, nor salvage). That might not be that much, but it was more than enough to deck him out with some pretty sweet looking weapons, dyes and whatnot, all without buying gems or getting the mythical ban you’re talking about.
Nope not bannable, since it actually does nothing to improve your character or gain him an unfair advantage over others. All it does is change the look and bring more diversity to the player characters in game.
You actually spend gold on it and gem store items. None of the items are profession restricted either, so its up to each and everyone to get the special look they want.
My best friend was a straight-A student, he was on the dean’s honor roll and had everything going for him. Then last week he took two Transmutation Stones and died instantly. RIP, Ralphie.
It might be common knowledge, but i found another interesting use for this “creative game mechanic”… My Mad King Book reward from Halloween, which was stuck on a toon i never play, I was able to use a basic Transmutation stone to put the skin onto an Account Bound Toymaker’s Bag, which now has the flaming book skin, Mad King flavor text, yet still has the stats and account-bound status of the Toymaker’s Bag. Personally, since there is no financial gain possible doing this kind of thing, I really don’t feel like it is bannable at all, any gain a player gets is completley aesthetic.
I think you are funny. There is no way doing something like that would be bannable.
On a side note, does that mean that I can transmute a legendary and transfer it to another champion this way? It’s awesome if its true.
The only skins ive been able to do this with are white items, or transferred onto an account-bound item. For example, Mad Kings Memories, when transmuted onto a BoE green backslot, binds immediately. Cultural gear that is transmuted retains it’s racial requirement. I have not tried on anything expensive, but if I could move a legendary, or a greatsaw, from one character on my account to another… something tells me it wont happen, though.
