Guild Banks Pt. 14

[Fesz-cenarius]

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

Blizzard has not yet defined any geographical or time limits to sharding, should they decide to use sharding.

Blizzard has so far left the door open to shard the entire game for eternity.

[Redheadchild-kul-tiras (Redheadchild)]

So now it’s the slippery slope argument again.

How many times do you want to go in this circle?

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

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.

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.

Based on what they said in the watercooler everything is in it and it sounds like they’re removing stuff that they don’t want in. So guild banks are already in there it’s just a matter of whether blizzard enables them or not.

[Minotron-khazgoroth (Minotron)]

And those decisions, whether to open the door to further changes, be it one or many, are Blizzard’s and will always be Blizzard’s to make. There isn’t really any more likelihood of them introducing further changes beyond the initial release than there is of them releasing it and doing nothing to it ever again.

[Lyfordeth-magtheridon]

I am neutral on the guild bank talk really. I think really there is no downside if you have a guild master you can trust. If there are no guild banks then you just basically ask your guild mates if anyone has any of those items. Does anyone have the mats for this enchant. They can give to you or sell to you.
Either way is good, I prefer no guild banks because business is business, and guilds promote a form of socialism. But that is just me.

[Fesz-cenarius]

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.

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.

Based on what they said in the watercooler everything is in it and it sounds like they’re removing stuff that they don’t want in. So guild banks are already in there it’s just a matter of whether blizzard enables them or not.

If I understood that dev water cooler correctly, Blizzard is using a more modern infrastructure with older data.

The framework for guild bank functionality may be in the infrastructure, but the “clickable objects” to access guild banks are not present in the 1.12 data. That would effectively mean guild banks do not have to be “removed”. Those “cickable objects” would actually have to be added in order for guild banks to be functional in classic.

[Studmuffyn-veknilash (Studmuffyn)]

The framework for guild bank functionality may be in the infrastructure, but the “clickable objects” to access guild banks are not present in the 1.12 data. That would effectively mean guild banks do not have to be “removed”. Those “cickable objects” would actually have to be added in order for guild banks to be functional in classic.

Now I really do not remember of course, but aside from SW wasn’t the thing they use in IF for it present as a graphic back then?

I think in Darn all they added was a chest or something, dunno hardly ever went there,lol.

[Fesz-cenarius]

So now it’s the slippery slope argument again.

How many times do you want to go in this circle?

Did you or did you not state that guild banks were the only non vanilla change you wanted?

Did you or did you not try to claim that the slippery slope does not exist?

Did you or did you not claim that guild banks would be a “security feature”?

Did you or did you not also claim that add-ons are a “security risk” and therefore baking add-on functionality into Classic baseline would be a “security feature” and that add-on functionality should be “baked in” baseline in Classic?

[Fesz-cenarius]

The framework for guild bank functionality may be in the infrastructure, but the “clickable objects” to access guild banks are not present in the 1.12 data. That would effectively mean guild banks do not have to be “removed”. Those “cickable objects” would actually have to be added in order for guild banks to be functional in classic.

Now I really do not remember of course, but aside from SW wasn’t the thing they use in IF for it present as a graphic back then?

I think in Darn all they added was a chest or something, dunno hardly ever went there,lol.

I do not specifically remember, but I do not believe that the back rooms of the Stormwind banks existed prior to the addition of guild banks. Even if the visual representation of any of the current clickable objects for accessing guild banks were present in vanilla, that does not necessarily mean anything.

The artwork may have been there, but it had no functionality in that data. It was not a “Clickable object” in that data. It was just part of the wall. That functionality would have to be built back in and the artwork changed to a “clickable object” rather than part of the wall.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

The framework for guild bank functionality may be in the infrastructure, but the “clickable objects” to access guild banks are not present in the 1.12 data. That would effectively mean guild banks do not have to be “removed”. Those “cickable objects” would actually have to be added in order for guild banks to be functional in classic.

Now I really do not remember of course, but aside from SW wasn’t the thing they use in IF for it present as a graphic back then?

I think in Darn all they added was a chest or something, dunno hardly ever went there,lol.

I do not specifically remember, but I do not believe that the back rooms of the Stormwind banks existed prior to the addition of guild banks. Even if the visual representation of any of the current clickable objects for accessing guild banks were present in vanilla, that does not necessarily mean anything.

The artwork may have been there, but it had no functionality in that data. It was not a “Clickable object” in that data. It was just part of the wall. That functionality would have to be built back in and the artwork changed to a “clickable object” rather than part of the wall.

Which is significantly less effort than the claim that blizzard would have to rebuild guild banks from scratch.

[Studmuffyn-veknilash (Studmuffyn)]

I do not specifically remember, but I do not believe that the back rooms of the Stormwind banks existed prior to the addition of guild banks. Even if the visual representation of any of the current clickable objects for accessing guild banks were present in vanilla, that does not necessarily mean anything.

The artwork may have been there, but it had no functionality in that data. It was not a “Clickable object” in that data. It was just part of the wall. That functionality would have to be built back in and the artwork changed to a “clickable object” rather than part of the wall.

yah they moved SW banks, don’t remember when either, but yah I was just wondering if you remembered about IF, but yah in any case, additional dev time required.

Which is significantly less effort than the claim that blizzard would have to rebuild guild banks from scratch.

honestly I’d be curious, because they are more than a few changes that would have to be made, SW itself, unless they just tossed in a chest or something.

[Redheadchild-kul-tiras (Redheadchild)]

Guild banks are not the only non vanilla change I would like, but what I want, and what I’m arguing are two separate things.

The slippery slope is a fallacy and DOESN’T exist, yet your trying to use that argument AGAIN.

I said guild banks have security Benefits and because of that and other reasons it’s worth discussing on to help blizzard make a educated decision on it that isn’t just from them wanting it or not.

Add-ons do cause a security issue depending on many factors, and some things that only address bad UI design should be considered for updating the UI.

As an example shift click for searching the AH wasn’t vanilla. I don’t think they should add the entire actioneer add-on, but they should clean up the UI functionality of the base UI to be better than what it was in vanilla. To allow fluid and sooth interaction with the UI. Again, I’m not suggesting it function like actioneer, but fixing the shift click for searching is definitely something they should CONSIDER.

[Fesz-cenarius]

Guild banks are not the only non vanilla change I would like, but what I want, and what I’m arguing are two separate things.

The slippery slope is a fallacy and DOESN’T exist, yet your trying to use that argument AGAIN.

I said guild banks have security Benefits and because of that and other reasons it’s worth discussing on to help blizzard make a educated decision on it that isn’t just from them wanting it or not.

Add-ons do cause a security issue depending on many factors, and some things that only address bad UI design should be considered for updating the UI.

As an example shift click for searching the AH wasn’t vanilla. I don’t think they should add the entire actioneer add-on, but they should clean up the UI functionality of the base UI to be better than what it was in vanilla. To allow fluid and sooth interaction with the UI. Again, I’m not suggesting it function like actioneer, but fixing the shift click for searching is definitely something they should CONSIDER.

Sounds to me like you just proved my point about that slippery slope by trying to tie the " security Benefits" of guild banks to baking add-on functionality into Classic baseline due to "Add-ons do cause a security issue ".

But go ahead and deny that slippery slope all you want as you continue to slide down that slope.

[Starman-zangarmarsh (Starman)]

I don’t understand this guy. Why can’t he accept that guild banks won’t lead to flying? They’re COMPLETELY different things for COMPLETELY different reasons.

[Fesz-cenarius]

I don’t understand this guy. Why can’t he accept that guild banks won’t lead to flying? They’re COMPLETELY different things for COMPLETELY different reasons.

Did I say that guild banks would lead to flying?

Or did I say that adding guild banks would set a precedent for further non vanilla QOL convenience changes?

Let’s not forget that it was one of your pro guild bank allies who tried to tie guild banks to baking add-on functionality into Classic baseline, after all.

[Studmuffyn-veknilash (Studmuffyn)]

I think I do, its not so much that GBs lead to flying , it just that Blizzard could use the same reasoning to add something like GBs to apply to almost anything with a few tweaks to said reasoning.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

I think I do, its not so much that GBs lead to flying , it just that Blizzard could use the same reasoning to add something like GBs to apply to almost anything with a few tweaks to said reasoning.

Yeah but we know we’re already getting changes so instead of just spamming no change it would be a better idea to actually discuss the pros and cons of whatever it is. Particularly for something like guild banks which basically have no cons.

[Starman-zangarmarsh (Starman)]

Did I say that guild banks would lead to flying?

You mentioned the “slippery slope” many times, so if there are a handful of static things people want like guild banks, then what pray tell would the slippery slope lead to?

[Fesz-cenarius]

Did I say that guild banks would lead to flying?

You mentioned the “slippery slope” many times, so if there are a handful of static things people want like guild banks, then what pray tell would the slippery slope lead to?

You know very well that there are not just a “handful of static things people want”. You, all by yourself, have more than “handful of static things you want”.

That also does not prelude the potential for things that have not even been brought up yet to raise their heads in the future.

[Starman-zangarmarsh (Starman)]

You know very well that there are not just a “handful of static things people want”. You, all by yourself, have more than “handful of static things you want”.

Irrelevant. Just because I started a conversation about A, B, C doesn’t mean I wanted everything to X, Y, Z.

That misconception is on you.