A slippery slope argument (because that’s what fallacies all are), is the use of a given scenario to imply that further scenarios are guaranteed to happen if the first scenario does.
It is a ‘causality error’ type of fallacy. In this case, that Layering will directly cause more retail elements to be added to Classic.
Loot trading is a concession to their changed situation with reduced GM’s.
RCR is a concession to their changed situation with reduced GM’s.
Layering is a temporary solution to a temporary problem at launch.
None of those features was added because they wanted to make Classic “more Retail”. The first two were added, because maintaining Classic would be cost-prohibitive without them. Layering was added because they didn’t want to give us the 2004 launch experience.
If you wanted to talk about Retail features in Classic, you should have gone with Battle Net, but since everyone is pretty much cool with it, it’s a clear indication that the argument is actually invalid.
Your own statement proves the fallacy. Layering is not going to lead to more Retail elements. More retail elements will be included if Blizzard chooses to incorporate them, regardless of whether they use Layering or not.
Therefore Layering leading to Retail is a slippery slope fallacy.
No one’s guaranteeing anything. However, we’re dealing with a money hungry business, and we’re (to some extent) not fools. We can hope that modern Blizzard will stop at layering, RCR, and loot trading, and hope that a lack of negative feedback won’t embolden them to push more changes (cash shop, tokens, “emergency” sharding for events). But, I don’t trust Blizzard at all, and the last 10 years of Blizzard’s history has only reinforced this distrust.
That’s fine, but Layering or not Layering, will not affect Blizzard choosing to add other Retail elements or not add other Retail elements. Each item will be considered on a case by case basis to solve a problem that needs solving.
They don’t need to solve finding groups, because that’s a Vanilla social element they want to maintain. So no need for LFD.
They do need to solve the launch issues, because that’s a Vanilla issue that they don’t want to maintain.
Loot trading: a change to save money
RCR: a change to save money
Layering: a change to save money (if all they are concerned about is falling populations, there are other solutions. Layering is existing tech, and thus cheaper to implement)
None of these changes are authentic, and layering is, by far, the most egregious of the three.
If you wanted to talk about Retail features in Classic, you should have gone with Battle Net, but since everyone is pretty much cool with it, it’s a clear indication that the argument is actually invalid.
For the most part, Battle Net exists outside the game. Also, hasn’t Blizzard largely restricted the in-game features that are in direct conflict with vanilla? Last I heard, the ability to talk to opposing faction members using BNet integration was removed.
Your own statement proves the fallacy. Layering is not going to lead to more Retail elements. More retail elements will be included if Blizzard chooses to incorporate them, regardless of whether they use Layering or not.
If Blizzard sees outcry against blatantly non-vanilla features die off, and the playerbase accepts them, then they’ll have their answer for whether they can implement even more cost saving or money generating features. Layering for Classic TBC’s launch is practically a given, and if Blizzard thinks their customers will just bend over and take it, then a cash shop and tokens are just around the corner.
Blizzard is a business, and ActiBlizzard is perfectly happy to tank its rep in order to rake in the money.
I have to ask this question because I see this statement made all the time about “not trusting Blizzard” If you distrust a company THAT much then why on earth do you continue or plan to give them more patronage?
I mean, if I go to a restaurant and get bad food (undercooked or whatever) I don’t go back because I can’t trust them. If I go and buy a car from a dealership and the car is bad, I never go back because I don’t trust them.
Why on earth would you continue to give them money (or plan to give them money if you are resubbing for classic) if you can’t trust them?
All businesses are “money hungry.” How else do they pay expenses and employees and benefits and their CEOs and all that nonsense?
If you don’t trust Blizzard to honor their word and remove layering before P2 as they have stated on a couple of occasions, then don’t give them your money. It’s as simple as that. I for one have no reason to not trust them to honor their word. Has retail gone down the hill from where it used to be? Sure, but every company makes mistakes.
I don’t play Hearthstone, OW, Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, or current WoW. The only reason I’m on board with Classic is because it has a Very clear roadmap, a roadmap that was made before Blizzard became the soulless corporation it is today. If Blizzard was developing WoW 2, I’d have no trust in Blizzard to create a game that I’d enjoy.
Also, I can’t play vanilla without hopping on a bootleg server in the middle of Russia. 99% of games can be played without breaking laws, vanilla isn’t one of them.
lol so basically you’re gonna play it because you don’t have the willpower to vote with your feet and refuse to play? Again, why would you want to give Blizzard any money if you don’t trust them to give you something that is worth your money…unless you think that even with layering the game is worth your money anyway…which in that case your argument is kind of moot.
There is a HUGE difference between greed and capitalism. Most people think they are the same.
Vanilla WoW = Capitalism
Classic WoW = Greed (dont believe me, look at the time between stress tests, name reservations, and launch. The timing is to perfectly spaced out 1 month. )
I’ve already stated that I’ll give Blizzard one month. If layering is still active after that month, I’m out. I’m not going to shout out a “Layering is in, I quit” ultimatum, because my threshold for bailing on the project hasn’t been reached yet.
Layering is a black mark against Classic, but it’s not game breaking. With layering, AV, and RCR, though, my feet are starting to get itchy.
Ok, that’s fair enough. 1 month might be enough time for them to remove layering from the game if the pop falls off.
I’m going off of what they said which was at the LATEST it would be out before P2 dropped, which if it’s still there then, then I think everyone who is against layering has the full right to get out their torches and pitchforks. I think a lot of people are jumping the gun on this thing because I don’t think layering will be as bad as people are making it out to be.
I’m in agreement about RCR, I’m not a fan of the auto squelch on it and the abuse that CAN happen with it. AV, that’s not gamebreaking to me. I’d like to relive the old multi day AV’s that I remember hearing about in Vanilla, but 1.12 AV will suit the purposes as far as getting PVP gear goes.
Why shouldn’t Blizzard take advantage of an opportunity and make an offer to let subbed accounts play stress tests and do name reservation. If people are willing to pay for that opportunity, why not make a little money off of it. That’s not greed, that’s capitalism. We demand and Blizzard supplies.
If you don’t agree with the practice there, then blame the people who continue to throw money at them for things like this. It’s like blaming the companies for all these mtx’s that have practically ruined modern gaming…if people wouldn’t buy them, then the companies wouldn’t do them to begin with.
Stress tests and beta I’d have to agree with you on. They aren’t “early access”, they are testing platforms. I have no sympathy for people who don’t have the patience to wait until launch. Name reservation is a bit scummy. Either you pay up early, without the ability to play the game for two weeks, or you stand a much lower chance of getting the name you want (especially with layering increasing the pool of players sharing a name database).
Layering, however, is in at launch, and avoiding it requires waiting weeks or months during which the game is active. Wait for layering to be removed, and you’re missing one of the more interesting periods in an MMO’s life (if not the most interesting), and possibly being left behind by friends who couldn’t wait to play.
First, layer hopping most likely wont be a thing on live. You see it in beta because they haven’t reduced the number of layers to match the number of players, they aren’t testing that there. If you layer hop on live you will most likely end up in a zone that is being farmed by someone else already.
Second, having locked layers will make a difference. In the beginning both would have the same amount of players. Lets say for example we are using 3 layers with 3k each. Under both plans we only expect 3k to be playing after the about the first month, hence the layering. This is what causes damage to the economy, You basically have 1k players getting there own server to farm on. The 6k tourists don’t really matter, nobody cares about the copper and peacebloom they will be getting.
Under layering, we can go down to 2 layers as soon as the population drops by 3k. This allows us to get rid of an entire servers worth of resources. Under locked layers, each server would be at around 2k players. You can’t really merge that, at least not without reintroducing queues. If you try to merge “fractions” of servers you harm the community by splitting them up. You will inevitably lock friends out of playing with each other for a few weeks by doing this. Under locked layers, you will most likely be waiting until all of the tourists leave before merging, so it will be more than “a few days”.
In closing, only the final servers worth of players are what really matters in regards to the economy, as we will be the ones still playing. Having multiple servers worth of resources is bad for the economy. The idea is to get rid of them as fast as possible to minimize that damage. Layering allows us to do that far quicker than locked layering does.
![:stuck_out_tongue:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue.png?v=6" ":stuck_out_tongue:")