Give us all a reason why Blizzard would go to whatever lengths necessary to ensure that that 1 hour wait for mail is in Classic if they do not feel it is “core game play”.
Oh, BTW, “core game play” does not necessarily mean that players cannot find a way to “work around it”.
Major cities? Do you mean cities like Gadgetzan, Booty Bay, Ratchet and Everlook, as well as the Capitol cities. Sure, if Johnny wants to create 7 bank alts so that he can park on in every capitol city, as well as the Goblin towns, then maybe he can bypass that one hour mail wait without a guild bank.
You also failed to address bank alts trivializing the storage of soulbound items, but I am not really surprised by that.
And you don’t need a bank alt in every major city, just the capital cities.
Storming and iron forge are so close together you wouldn’t need one for both, so that’s one bank alt. Then you can choose to park a bank alt in darnasis, or ratchet. I would chose ratchet because like IF/SW it’s in the middle of the Continent and generally easier to access from southern side of the Continent while northern side could go from darkshore to the other Continent and to IF/SW with ease.
Horde would have someone in ratchet (middle of Continent and easy to access from BB or southern Continent) and under city which is easy to access from the northern part of that Continent.
So that’s 2 bank alts regardless of faction that are in spots that could be accessed just as easily as heading to a capital town for guild banks.
So no, it really wouldn’t require 7 bank alts, nice exaggeration.
Edit: blizzard would put that 1 hour wait in because the purists zeliots would try to bite their head off if they didn’t and it’s a miniscule change to do so for anyone who is aware of the work around.
Blizzard would implement a change to go back to the vanilla version of mail because “the purists zeliots would try to bite their head off if they didn’t”, but they will implement a totally non vanilla QOL convenience (one that they even stated was added for the CONVENIENCE it brings) and “the purists zeliots” won’t try to bite their head off for doing so?
Riiiiight.
/sarcasm off
We get it. You want your pet non vanilla QOL conveniences.
I’ll be here asking Blizzard to keep Classic as close to vanilla as orcishly possible, and that includes leaving out the non vanilla QOL convenience of guild banks.
Guild bank alts did NOT force players to CHOOSE to willfully and deliberately put their accounts at risk and violate the TOS by sharing accounts.
You have yet to show us ANY exploit.
It is up to the individual player to CHOOSE to whether or not to VOLUNTARILY send items to other players.
Players can CHOOSE to hold items on their own characters.
Guild banks did not prevent theft and were no more secure than guild bank alts. In fact, guild banks could be said to be less secure than guild bank alts do to the increased number of players with access to take those guild resources.
Is it impossible to have only one or two guild bank alts?
In addition to that, restricting guild bank access to only one or two people contradicts one of the major arguments for the non vanilla QOL convenience of guild banks–namely not having to wait for the guild bank alt holder to be online to distribute the guild resources.
“Guild bank alts require Johnny to wait until Billy, the guild bank alt holder, is online to give him the resources he wants. We need guild banks so Johnny doesn’t have to wait for Billy to be online. Ignore the fact that only Billy will have access to that guild bank so Johnny will still have to wait for what he wants until Billy is online to give it him, though.”
Transparency with guild bank alts depends upon how a guild bank alt system is set up, including any checks and balances.
Guild banks are definitely more convenient, but not really any more secure or transparent than a system of guild bank alts that has been set up to maximize its effectiveness.
Absolutely not, and I think this sums it up perfectly
I definitely don’t wan’t it for convenience, it just brings us one step closer to retail’s “easy mode is everywhere”.
I definitely don’t want it for the increased transparency of guild bank storage. Having to use alts required sacrificing character slots, putting more value into them. It required more trust with the people who owned the alts, which fosters better relationships and keeps people responsible. Just keeping track of and withdrawing items required communication and cooperation, which once again helps build trust and responsibility.
Making everything easier, and taking away the player created methods of policing is what retail is, not Classic.
I get the reasoning for this desire, the internet is bad. You can’t trust random people, people can just get away with what ever they want. There’s no way to hold someone accountable for something, so you need to rely more on game infrastructure than stranger honesty. But the people who played vanilla know when you had smaller communities (single servers with no sharding or cross realm), you had much more accountability, and the world was still small enough where someone couldn’t hide from their reputation.
Yes and no.
You are not restricted by waiting until the person who is responsible for the enchanting mats to be on online.
Instead you just need anyone online who has withdraw permission from the bank to be online.
The cataloging and distribution of guild resources is vastly superior with guild banks
Yes, it has convenient effects for players, no one is trying g to say it doesn’t, however it also has effects that help prevent issues with security, scams, work load for CS, exc.
I’m not saying “guild banks should be added because their convenient” I’m ignoring all forms of QoL for the players as an argument standpoint. Offering QoL does not out way the argument of “it wasn’t in vanilla” and should never be the reason to consider a change. Security, scam prevention, CS workload, exc. Should however be things we look at for “if” a change should be considered, and that is why guild banks should be something blizzard considers adding to classic. Yes it wasn’t in vanilla, but it offers much more benifit than just QoL.
He gave an example, 1-2 usually means finding people with different play time sceduals to try and give the guild bank 100% up time in someone being able to access it.
As for why you wouldn’t split the enchanting mats between 3 guild bank alts, because not everyone guild has an abundance of enchanting mats to the point evenly dividing it by 3 would allow for sufficient materials for getting enchantments done. Thus you end up waiting. On top of that with 3 people doing the enchanting guild bank alts, and then all having their own “log sheet” it’s much harder to tell when something just “disappears” and could lead to a long term scam. Yet with guild banks, it’s all one log, that can’t be edited to show false data.
Well, at least your honest enough about that. That doesn’t mean it should have a place in Classic, though.
That may be, but if you are going to restrict access to one or two people, then anyone wanting something must wait for someone with access to be online. If you are going to give everyone access so they don’t have to wait, then you have just drastically increased the potential for theft.
You cannot have it both ways, You cannot have the “convenience” of not having to wait while still have the “security” of restricted access.
Between this statement your earlier admission of the convenience of QOL of guild banks, I think we can see a pattern to your desire for guild banks–convenience, QOL, convenience, QOL, convenience, QOL, convenience, QOL… .
Yeah, because 2 people would be on 24/7 and no one would ever have to wait.
I can only speak for my own experience, but even though the guild I was in divided guild resources among at least three guild bank alts, we rarely ever ran into a situation where any one of those guild bank alts did not have enough of a given resource to fulfill a request.
Were there times that happened? Yes, but they were extremely few and far between.