This is the problem. You got ripped off by untrustworthy people, and so you’re trying to foist a non-Vanilla system onto us for your own personal protection.
Require your guild banker to have an Authenticator, so that they can’t get ripped off. Again, gold sellers only hacked accounts because they didn’t have 2FA, and regularly reused their WoW password on less protected sites. The vast majority of players didn’t get hacked, so pick someone who’s trustworthy.
Blizzard already has 2 Factor Authentication implemented, so the major way you’re worried about is a non-event. The other is untrustworthy people which you are rocking back and forth about in PTSD incident, and botting has nothing to do with banks.
Again with the “pick trustworthy” solution… And the 2FA has ways around it to still share an account.
I wasn’t the only one that had a bad experience. When guild banks were released there was an army of people cheering on the forums for the logs, not the extra storage room. I wonder why people were so happy about uneditable logs… Hmmm.
Regardless of if guild banks get into classic, it is laughable that you keep asking me and others to have blind Faith in “trustworthy people” in an online, never know someone’s real name, environment.
Even if someone is a great person in RL, they might just be a scumbag on the internet because of the lack of consequences. But they have “the good guy” act down already so you will never know.
If only there was some way that people that felt all those other members of their guild were just “unscrupulous thrieves waiting to happen” could “protect themselves”.
If only those people had way to avoid what they felt was “blind faith” in “untrustworthy, unscrupulous thieves” just waiting for their chance to steal the guild blind.
But, alas, it is not possible for them to store their own items and let the guild know that whatvthey have is available if anyone needs it. Right?
Alas, it is not possible for them to store their own items and never have to worry about those “unscrupulous thieves waiting to happen” taking those items. Right?
Guild banks would make a ton of sense in Classic.
So would adding Dual-spec, 1k gold cost like in BC.
So would pet, mount collection windows.
All quality of life changes that don’t directly impact gameplay, and would save a ton of headaches for players of all skill levels and Blizzard itself.
None of it will happen though, because the #nochanges crowd is the shouting, moronic equivalent of anti-vaxxers for WoW. And good for them, always let people enjoy the suffering they choose.
Also, zero incentive for Blizzard to put ANY effort towards it - if Classic wobbles in a few months as people clear out because they can’t handle Classic, then Blizzard gets a ‘told you so’ moment; if Classic is a big hit and sustains player growth throughout, Blizzard wins. If Blizzard makes any changes, and Classic fails in any way, the changes will take the blame no matter what they are, including layering.
It is not an opinion it is a fact. Gameplay isn’t the meta of guild interactions, you aren’t defining gameplay in any reasonable manner if you think a guild bank is changing it.
Actually, its closer to a “fact” to say that guild banks and many of the other quality of life elements you listed, compounded to destroy WoW as we knew it, and create Retail.
So it’s absurd to claim that QoL changes don’t change the meta. Literally because we have 15 years of history proving that it did.
Your opinion is wrong. You are free to hold that opinion, but you are not free to claim it is a fact, nor are you free from refutation.
As Kevin Jordan said, some things can be changed with virtually no negative consequences and they should be but it takes a good game developer to know what those things are.
If you can’t differentiate between a QoL change like Guild Banks and one like Flying and you just lump them all in together, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I would venture to say that the majority of people on this board see multiboxing as more game breaking than Guild Banks, even though multiboxing was allowed in Vanilla. I don’t think your opinion on what destroyed WoW is valid, not one bit; as you’re a multiboxing advocate.
Hopefully Blizzard does keep multiboxing support limited so we don’t have to encounter people like Eloraell, playing twenty characters with one keyboard.
What a joke, claiming that Guild Banks are part of the reason WoW is in the state it is today while advocating for something as anti-MMORPG as multiboxing.
Oh man, the irony of both the inaccuracy of the statements, AND the fact that you literally did what you said you can’t do, is enormous.
Well, you know… one of those things was acceptable in Vanilla, and the other didn’t exist. That said, I’m not an “advocate of multiboxing”. You’re literally referencing a post where I said that if a feature from Vanilla wasn’t included, I’d be cancelling a second account. Its up to Blizzard whether they choose to support multiboxing or not, but it existed back then and so it should exist in Classic.
Guild Banks changed the consumables meta dramatically. Dual spec changed the gold availability for hybirds in another dramatic way. LFG, another QoL improvement is generally seen as the first major blow to community in WoW.
Regardless, guild banks can’t be added, because then Blizzard can’t reclaim their IP from Private Servers. If you don’t understand that element, there’s plenty of other threads explaining it.
You made a post threatening to cancel your second account on the basis of a function that you use for multiboxing not being included in Classic.
Look at your worthless multiboxing thread and tell me how much support you garnered. Multiboxing has definitely caused more people to quit the game than Guild Banks. Guild Banks are an amazing feature that adds immersion and keeps you in the game, rather than logging in and out while editing some google doc.
Multiboxing is anti-MMO and anti-RPG. Every player character you see in-game should be an individual, not a mass of nearly automated pixels being controlled by a single person. Multiboxing is close to being sanctioned botting, it doesn’t matter if Blizzard lets players do it. The players don’t like it, except for the extreme minority such as yourself. Any effort to restrict it, or lack of effort to support it is going to be met with applause from the community.
I said that I will be cancelling my 2nd account if focus isn’t in Classic, since it was in Vanilla. That’s not a threat, its causality. There’s no point paying $15 a month for something I won’t use.
The focus unit ID in no way prevents multiboxers from using keycloning software that Blizzard allows. I simply don’t want to be one of those type of players who uses third party software for a pocket healer.
That’s not an “advocate for multiboxing” in any way shape or form. Its simply laying out the financial decision based on criteria.
Quite a bit actually. The fact that it’s still got people going back and forth without my involvement shows that the point of the thread is valid.
Regardless, your assertion that one aspect invalidates all other statements is a fallacy.
Just because you don’t like my opinion on another subject, doesn’t mean that you somehow can claim superiority on this subject. You’re literally asking for changes to the Vanilla meta. My post was about restoring the Vanilla meta, because we had that element that they chose not to recreate in Classic.
So basically, you’re arguing for a change, and I’m arguing for authenticity, and refuting your supposed reasons.
Sounds like you’re losing and now you’re lashing out in a tantrum, grasping at whatever straws you can to undermine valid criticism.
Oh man. This isn’t an ad hominem. It’s literally describing your argument, not you. If I said “You’re a baby”, it would be an ad hominem. But your last post is literally lashing out and grasping at straws.
If you’re going to use words like ad hominem, at least understand them.