I’m now calling it administration fees. ![:money_mouth_face:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/money_mouth_face.png?v=6" ":money_mouth_face:")
![:moneybag:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/moneybag.png?v=6" ":moneybag:")
![:money_with_wings:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/money_with_wings.png?v=6" ":money_with_wings:")
1 Like
You do that, since there is no exploit.
except for what I just laid out as what he meant.
the alt system could be exploited and that GBs addressed that particular ‘exploit’, course you can’t really fix dishonest people , as they adjust to any new system and seem to always find a way to do what they want.
that’s the ‘exploit’ he is talking about.
3 Likes
Well none from us professional guild bank alt facilitators.
It will be up front in the fine print.
I can’t speak for those who will be selling gold to Susan for resale though.
They may just take what they want and not say anything.
You know. Exploiting their guildies…LOL
Was anyone forced to end anything to any other player? NO.
Did anyone who sent anything to another player CHOOSE to do so VOLUNTARILY? YES.
Did anyone hack the in game mail system to redirect mail to themselves so that they received items that were actually sent to different player? NO.
Did every player have the option to store any and all items they found on their own characters? YES.
No exploit here folks.
Keep misrepresenting it as an exploit in the hopes of bullying Blizzard into implementing this one of your pet non vanilla QOL convenience changes, though.
We’ll have to wait and see how that works out for you.
Was the CoD mail scam considered an exploit?
A bannable exploit at that?
Did anyone make them open that mail?
Edit: Indeed we shall.
1 Like
Taking advantage of a weakness in a system to gain something is an exploit though, and some people did do exactly that, GBs address that particular weakness in the system, but like I said, no system can fix dishonest people who are going to find a way to exploit any system to take advantage to gain whatever benefit they are after.
That all said, i like putting it out there again and that I don’t want them included, mostly due to that they weren’t in Vanilla, but also that people are going to try to exploit whatever system there is, so let’s just go with how things were as just deal with that.
Was honestly hoping you would answer as I really like talking and discussing topics with you.
3 Likes
Fesz, I get where you’re coming from and I admire your commitment to classic being true to the original game.
I didn’t get a reply from you to my earlier post so I’ll reword in the hopes that I can understand your viewpoint better:
In my opinion, guild banks did exist in vanilla in the form of bank alts; characters created for the sole purpose of holding inventory for for guilds.
Bank alts have the following attributes:
- Inventory space that can be increased by purchasing additional bank tabs & bigger bags.
- Ability to interact with other players in the vicinity and trade items instantly.
- Shared access or at least the intention of shared access.
Assuming we can agree on the above; I don’t see how replacing bank alts with a static hole in the wall will affect the vanilla experience. It would have to be limited to one city per faction to prevent it being used as an instant mail system but that is easily doable.
If Blizzard did that, the only effects I can see would be less bank alt characters standing around in city’s, less relogging, and less out-of-game administration; none of which contribute to the vanilla experience in my opinion.
Anything else is just a question of parameters; rules, tab size, cost, etc could all be made to exactly replicate a bank alt character while removing the need for several hundred stupidly named gnomes and a whole bunch of relogging.
99% of the time, you’ll find me in the no changes camp but bank alts always felt like a broken, unintended workaround during my vanilla time. Done right, this is just a housekeeping change.
5 Likes
The thing is , the same argument could also be applied with tweaks to almost everything that improved a function, so it’s best to resist the temptation to ‘improve’ Classic and release it how it was, warts and all.
2 Likes
“Bully”? This is a discussion forum. We’re discussing. You turn everything into something it’s not.
3 Likes
Yes, guild bank alts existed in vanilla. Gild banks, however, NEVER did.
One is vanilla. The other is not. It really is that simple.
In addition, you want Blizzard to devote additional time and resources to redesigning the entire guild bank system–only one major city per faction, changing tab size, cost, etc.–just to add some convenience that vanilla not only survived, but actually thrived, without.
Even if Blizzard did devote that time and those resources to changing the guild bank system as you suggest, how long do you think it would be before the inevitable cries of “Why should I have to actually travel to X city to access the guild bank. They should be available in every city.” began?
Guild banks would also open the door for further non vanilla changes. We’ve already seen at least one proponent for guild banks use the “security feature” of guild banks to push for making add-on functionality baseline by claiming that add-ons are a “security risk”. That same person wants to claim that the slippery slope doesn’t exist, yet he cannot even keep himself from using that slippery slope by trying to use a feature that doesn’t yet even exist in Classic to justify more of his pet non vanilla QOL convenience changes being added to Classic.
Yes, bully.
Blizzard has stated that they intend to fix bugs and exploits. IMO, some people are intentionally falsely labeling guild bank alts as an exploit in an attempt to coerce, or bully, Blizzard into giving them their desired non vanilla convenience change since Blizzard said they were going to fix exploits.
Yup pretty much what I said, I knew I had it right.
Well ‘could’ is more accurate, people can ask for all they want, Blizzard is going to do whatever they are going to do, and it will take more than a couple of dozen of forum posters for them to do anything, so I would not worry unless you started to see some gigantic movement about any of these changes.
1 Like
Expect I defined for you the exploit, so it is not false, just as I also said it plugged one hole and just made others, so it is pretty likely this is not the type of exploit Blizzard was referring to when they said that.
2 Likes
The best way to express is probably to say that guild banks (or any non vanilla change) sets a precedent for further non vanilla changes. Each concession made makes it easier to make the next concession. Each non vanilla change added makes it harder for Blizzard to say no to the next one.
You could call it a scam, but it is not an exploit. There is a difference.
Another factor to consider is that guild bank alts were nothing like the COD mail scam. ANYONE could send an in game mail to any other player with a COD on it.
Guild bank alts were not open to just anyone, though. Guilds chose who their guild bank alts would be. The guild leadership trusted that person enough to handle guild resources, whether that trust was warranted or not.
My whole argument was that it actually doesn’t improve a function as far as gameplay is concerned though. From the end user perspective, it replaces a level one dummy character with something that looks like a bank.
In response to Fesz, making some basic UI changes isn’t going to change the release date mate. As far as further changes, that would be adding real, additional functionality that wasn’t in vanilla.
I do understand where you guys are coming from with the slippery slope thing and I’m really not going to be that upset if guild banks are left out in all shapes and forms. That being said, I’ll be on an RP realm and reporting anyone with bank in their name ![:rofl:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/rofl.png?v=6" ":rofl:")
Look I advocated for guild banks for a long time, but them doing sharding in the starting areas (and as far as I know that’s it, it goes back to normal outside them) isn’t an indication they are doing “changes”. There’s no longer an indication they will add anything that was outside vanilla. If they do guild banks as far as I’m concerned thats great. But we should try and keep the conversation focused on things between 1.0 and 1.12 vanilla wed like to see at this point
I’d go with that, like I said, a lot of the reasoning used could then be used to apply to almost anything, and they have said themselves something to the wffect of resisting to change something that they later improved upon, they didn’t as their goal was for Classic to be how it was, warts and all.
Well yah, but it was a scam people used to exploit a weakness, so semantics aside , the same goal is accomplished.
Oh I was not referring to this at alll, honestly have no idea what it is , other than what it sounds like, i was referring to the logs honestly, but like I keep coming back to in this topic, you cannot fix dishonesty and some people want and will do whatever to exploit to gain an advantage or something they want.
And setting permissions mirrors this functionality.
but in the end, you are correct they were not in Vanilla, this is one of those warts that was part of that, and the improved version fixes a scam/exploit that is not on the level of what they were talking about when they said they were fixing exploits and such.
1 Like
It all depends on how present GBs are in the code base(not sure if right word to use) of 7.3.5, if not at all, it would have to written in, if it is, then to do what you want would require changes from how it was implemented, which would add to dev time.