With the new forum it will never cap. So it will be part 14 for ever.
1 Like
True, but that does not mean ânecro without adding or bringing anything new to the discussion just top bring a pet desired non vanilla QOL convenience change to the topâ is appropriate.
It could also be considered spamming to continue to create new threads about the same thing without bringing anything new to the discussion.
In this case, since the person who chose to necro this thread to bring one of his pet non vanilla QOL covnenience changes to the top brought nothing new to the discussion, this thread should have been left at the bottom of whatever depths it had reached.
If you think the thread was necroâd without a good reason, report it and move on. Unless of course, you want to keep posting and keeping it on the front page.
3 Likes
I find it interesting that one of the biggest advocates for guild banks wants to claim that guild banks need to be implemented because guild bank alts are âsecurity risksâ because âguild bank alts 'force â players to share accountsâ.
The truth is that nothing and no one can force a player to share their accounts. The player CHOOSES to share their accounts.
That same advocate of guild banks does not recognize that the vanilla honor system was far more encouraging of account sharing than guild bank alts ever were. He would have us all believe that the vanilla honor system is not a âsecurity riskâ.
NOTE: I am NOT advocating changing the vanilla honor system I am simply pointing out that his pet non vanilla QOL convenience change is a âsecurity riskâ since it âforced players to share accountsâ, but he would have us believe that the vanilla honor system is not a âsecurity riskâ even though it also encouraged account sharing.
As for security risks, that guild bank advocate claims that guild banks cannot be used to support changing the vanilla honor system, even though they they both encouraged account sharing and could therefore be considered âsecurity risksâ. While he wants the vanilla honor system and claims that guild banks cannot be used to support a change to that vanilla honor system, he claims that add-on functionality should be baked into Classic baseline, using the claim that add-ons are âsecurity risksâ.
Looking at guild banks from the storage side, people would have us believe that even though guild banks provide massive storage increases (especially for those level 1 bank alts) that they are unrelated to things that they do not want, like void storage and the collections interface and therefore cannot be used as a link to those systems.
report it and move on. this is my last reply to this thread.
necros without anything new adding to the discussion is just spam.
As another poster pointed out, there is no longer a front page.
I have no doubt that the necro was reported, though. Hopefully the person responsible for the necro will be invited to enjoy a forum vacation.
In a world where they are considering loot trading in order to take burden off customer support (even though it will likely create more of the same), I could easily see them using that logic to leave GBs in game.
Personally I am fine either way but view something that removes the need to do spreadsheet time accounting outside of the game, and rather frees up that time for those players to actually play the game itself, as a Good Thing.
1 Like
That wonât happen but you can keep dreaming. Itâs more likely that you or I receive a forum vacation for constantly going off-topic.
Wasnât labeled as spam the last time you guys tried.
Go ahead. Mass report away. Funny seeing that from the same people crying about right click report in game leading to abuse. LOL
Nah. You guys wouldnât be trying to silence people because you donât agree with them.
Smh.
The server load at prime raid (everyone logging in and out on multiple alts)time to keep sharding out is reason enough to add them imo.
So is lessening the burden of those overworked GMâs.
We donât need useless tickets clogging up CS.
Acoording to some in this very thread CS will be burdened by the reviews from the squelchs that will be handed out by people trying to silence others.
As has been demonstrated repeatedly across 13 capped threads and now this one: The benefits to the health of the game out weigh it wasnât in Vanilla.
4 Likes
Ah, yes.
The usual claim that "my pet non vanilla QOL convenience change is only for the health of the game, It has nothing to do with a desire for convenience above all else. " claim.
If you define âhealth of the gameâ as catering to those who desire all sorts of conveniences that were never present in vanilla, then maybe.
Ah yes.
The usual âlets call everything QoL and throw in some âââ"" for good measure".
Speaking of adding nothing new to this debate. We have Ratsy and his attempts at a catch phrase.
You should have named that toon Copypaste.
5 Likes
Even Blizzard stated they added guild banks for the CONVENIENCE they provided. They never said a word about âaccount securityâ, âscamsâ, reducing ticket load, etc. that those desiring the non vanilla QOL convenience of guild banks want to claim were the reasons guild banks were added.
The one undeniable and irrefutable fact is that guild banks were never part of vanilla.
1 Like
Oh so now you take what blizz says at face value?
So you put stock in why blizz added guild banks but you donât trust their word that sharding will only be in the starting zones?
LOL
How utterly âconvenienceâ minded of you.
Yes we have clearly established they were not in Vanilla. No one has even disputed that.
What you havenât refuted is the positives that guild banks do bring.
From officers actually spending more time in game (building community) to players feeling like their contributions did matter and are secure.
6 Likes
Does Blizzard have a history of saying that they added something for convenience when they added it for another reason?
Has Blizzard never said they added, or changed, something because it was actually being exploited?
Does Blizzard have a history of saying that a new technology that is antithetical to a cohesive community would be used only in limited areas and circumstances and then extending that technology to the entire game at all times?
One other thing to note is that I oppose both sharding and guild banks.
You, however, want both. Is that due to the conveniences you think they bring?
Wrong.
I want guild banks.
Iâll play with sharding. Iâd prefer it wasnât but it is the most logical solution to a mess of a launch.
As for thr rest of your post. Love seeing you flip your stance on trusting blizz.
Good for you.
1 Like
First, I apologize if I misinterpreted your stance on sharding.
/sarcasm on
I guess âtrustingâ Blizzard with regards to a statement made over a decade ago when they could be trusted means I âflipped my stanceâ on trusting Blizzard about a statement they made less than three months ago when Blizzard has repeatedly shown they can no longer be trusted to honor their word.
Riiiiiiight.
/sarcasm off
I donât think I ever said vanilla account sharing was forced by guild bank alts, but I did say it is encouraged by how that system works.
Nor have I said that the honor system is in any way not encouraging account sharing and thus causing a security risk, it does do that, however changing that would end up changing core game play aspects of the vanilla design, while guild banks do not change any core gameplay aspects. Logging out and into a bank alt isnât core game play, itâs a player work around for the system that is in place, and thus shows that core game play aspect of âin townâ inventory management was not actually a core game play aspect from day one of the game opening. Thus making this change would not effect core gameplay, because while open world inventory management IS a core gameplay condition to consider while playing, the moment your in town, itâs irrelevant because of the player work around that existed in vanilla.
So you wanted to say I was ignoring the honor system? Thereâs your proof Iâm not, because changes the honor system is a core game play change, guild banks donât have that effect as they change in town inventory management, which was already made irrelevant through bank alts and thus is not a core gameplay feature that can be changed.
The only way guild banks would change a core gameplay aspect is if guild perks are also put in and thus makes guild banks useable out in the world. Which I am very much against guild perks.
Void storage is also unrelated to guild banks in the sense that it adds an aspect that wasnât there before. More room for keeping bind on pickup/soulbound items. Guild banks donât allow this because you canât put soulbound items in a guild bank. Because of this it doesnât add any more âpersonal spaceâ to a character than bank alts already did because while bank alts trivialize in town inventory management for most items, they donât trivialize the soulbound items inventory management, which void storage would do. Which is why void storage being compared to guild banks is a bad comparison because you donât put rugged leather into void storage, you put soulbound gear you will want to use later, or keep because of itâs /use or looks.
So, any more words you want to try to put into my mouth?
3 Likes
I think you proved the point that you want your pet vanilla conveniences and will find a way to dismiss and say that those things you do not want should not be used, even though they can be shown to be related.
Guild banks do not affect âcore game playâ? No, they just allow players to completely bypass that one hour delay with mail and the need to actually meet to transfer items instantly. It would seem that Blizzard felt this need to actually meet to transfer items instantly was âcore game playâ strongly enough to ensure that one hour delay with the mail system was part of Classic.
Bank alts do not trivialize storing âsoulbound itemsâ? I guess being able to send everything that is not soulbound to those bank alts and being able to use a characterâs entire bank solely for soulbound items doesnât trivialize the storage of those soulbound items?
Oh, you mean how people would have a bank alt in every major city, mail the item to said bank alt, then log over and trade it to them?
Mail to others was 1 hour, between your own characters on the same account, that was instant.
And guild banks can only be used where? Major cities.
Hmmm sounds like a player work around was already there to negate that wait if the player had half a brain.
So again, doesnât change anything about core gameplay, just like in town inventory management had a player work around to negate itâs importance to the point it canât be considered a core game play mechanic.
Sorry but, your really grasping at straws arenât you?
Edit: and as for the soulbound items, they were the only item not possible to negate inventory management with, aka you couldnât send it to a bank alt and wouldnât be able to put it in a guild bank.
The only item inventory management mattered for in town was soulbound items because of bank alts work around, guild banks wonât change that aspect. So adding guild banks for the multitude of reasons already given wonât change how inventory management in town worked with soulbound items, void storage would and is why it changes the core gameplay mechanics of dealing with inventory management in terms of soulbound items.
Again I will spell it out for you. Guild banks have 0 effect on how much room someone has for soulbound items, and only effect the items that could have already been sent sent to a bank alt if guild banks weâre not there (and even then people will still have bank alts as they wonât want to give their items they plan on using to the guild bank, and thus will still use bank alts for personal non soulbound storage) void storage however directly effects total inventory room for soulbound items, which would effect what inventory management was a core gameplay mechanic.
So comparing void storage, which can add storage to items you canât give to other people, to guild banks, which is all items not soulbound and could have been sent to a bank alt anyway results in them having fundamentally different effects on inventory management because one had no work around to add more room for soulbound items in vanilla, and the other added more inventory room than anyone could hope to fill through a vanilla work around and thus the change of adding guild banks would have no actual impact on core gameplay mechanics.
4 Likes