Heh, not really much else to say. I show Blizzard’s stance on not wanting to open Pandora’s Box by applying modern judgment, values, and solutions to Vanilla ‘problems’, and people just ignore it. All I hear now is…
2 Likes
Funny, that’s all I hear from both sides. Yet each side thinks they are making rational arguments and the other is digging in and ignoring logic.
I was simply correcting you equating Ion’s example of Pandora’s box with the slippery slope fallacy. It’s not the same thing.
Also, Ion said they view the 1.12 data as almost sacrosanct, and the other Classic devs’ have said they want to avoid touching the 1.12 data. Just like they said they want to avoid making changes using their modern judgment, yet you ignore that everytime you post in support of reverting back to a previous version of AV.
You can’t see past your own bias, it’s unfortunate.
6 Likes
Which is why so many people make points for it?
2 Likes
If we could have a logical discussion, I would suggest that a list of criteria should be decided and any proposed changes be set against those criteria, ie.
- does the proposed change affect class balance?
- does the proposed change increase or decrease player interaction?
- does the proposed change increase or decrease travel time?
- does the proposed change provide additional functionality compared to the vanilla version?
etc, etc. At the end of the day, someone’s always going to be unhappy but hey; we’re getting a Blizzard version of vanilla and that’s great. I don’t see why that should preclude us from discussing the feasibility of minor changes, provided they don’t add or subtract from the original in terms of real gameplay (logging in and out is not gameplay).
5 Likes
It is the same thing. You literally described a slippery slope: one change leading to other changes. But whatever. ![:wink:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/wink.png?v=6" ":wink:")
1 Like
so misquoting what they said by changing the context it was used for proves you right?
what world are you from again?
1 Like
what ion was referring to with the Pandora’s box was changing existing code in the 1.12 code (which guild banks don’t at this time and wouldn’t have this effect he is referring to) something could lead to unintended errors and bugs in the entire code.
again your misquoting what he is saying by changing the context of the discussion into what you wanted it to be about instead of what it actually was about.
edit: an example of what he was talking about, reverting AV to a previous version before 1.12, could cause things in other parts of the code to be off.
4 Likes
Yet even though they said they don’t want to use modern solutions to “Vanilla problems”…
We have loot sharing and possibly sharding being used to solve “Vanilla problems”.
So im sorry but at best “blizz’s stance” doesn’t look very solid on that front.
Authenticator (modern solution) fixing “Vanilla problems”.
Oh and bnet also fixes Vanilla problems. LOL
Yea. For such a solid stance there sure are a few exceptions already…
2 Likes
Ion was talking about changes having unintended consequences, not that making changes would lead them down a slippery slope of making other changes. Can you really not differentiate between these two concepts?
5 Likes
It was not in vanilla in any form.
2 Likes
No, guild banks would not affect class balance.
Guild banks would decrease player interaction. “Why do I need to interact with any other players? I’ll just grab what I want out of the guild bank and I don’t have to interact with anyone to do so.”
If you want to claim that players need to interact with other players if they do not have access to the guild bank, then it would neither increase nor decrease player interaction over guild bank alts.
They decrease travel time. “Why should I go all the way to Stormwind from Tanaris. Just drop it in the guild bank and I’ll grab it from the guild bank in Gadegetzan.”
Yes. A centralized storage that can be accessed from any bank in the world is a functionality that the “vanilla system” never had.
1 Like
Guild banks don’t change the existing 1.12 code?
Adding back rooms to the Stormwind banks and changing all the artwork to add all those “clickable objects” that were never part of the 1.12 code wouldn’t change the existing 1.12 code?
I may be wrong, but it sure sounds to me like that would be changing the existing 1.12 code, in which case that would throw guild banks squarely into that Pandora’s box, even if that Pandora’s box was only about changing the existing code.
1 Like
a properly set up permissions from guild banks would still require people to talk to each other to get items.
so enable guild banks in ONE major city per faction and nowhere else, not hard to do.
you couldn’t log out and access the guild bank alt from anywhere in the world if you were the holder of said bank? or let alone personal bank alts from ANY mail box?
that’s news to me, I wasn’t aware you couldn’t log onto your alts unless you were in the same city as them, in the exact same spot as them, just to log on to them, we must have been playing a different vanilla.
1 Like
Is it not possible that adding back rooms to the Stormwind banks and changing all the artwork to add all those “clickable objects” could have unintended consequences? Wouldn’t the possibility of those unintended consequences risk opening that Pandora’s box?
adding code is VERY different than changing code.
lets say node reads code from line 103 to line 107 of a data file
well when you change the data file it can move line 107 to 108, and creates a ripple effect on all the data in that file that is pinged from line numbers.
adding code involves adding data at the end of a data file instead of changing existing lines, so instead of possibly moving line 107 to 108, you instead add line 503 when the last line WAS 502 before.
this is of course not the only way data can be set up to be pinged but it gives the perfect example of why editing existing data and adding something can have a huge difference in how it effects the system as a whole. one possibly breaking everything, the other not.
As I said, that would be a wash. Guild banks have no advantage to guild banks over the vanilla system in that situation, do they? Since there would be no “pro” to guild banks in this situation, there is no need to make that non vanilla QOL convenience change.
So, not only do you want them to add the non vanilla convenience of guild banks, but you want them to devote time and resources to redesign the guild bank system to make it work in way that it doesn’t work in retail in order to add that non vanilla QOL convenience to Classic?
If I log onto my guild bank alt in Darnassus, and you are in Ironforge, you would not have access to anything that guild bank alt had. If you wanted something immediately, we would still have to meet.
except they don’t have to add back rooms?
spawn 1 NPC that is set up to function as the guild bank interaction tool and boom! you get what is needed to have a trigger to open the UI of guild banks with the possibility of using existing models and just making one new npc trigger, instead of having to work an entire art team into the adding of guild banks.
its not nearly as hard or time consuming as you want to make it sound.
and if they want to make it more ‘lore’ friendly, place an uninterruptable treasure chest next to the npc (again reusing models) and it now has a visual indication outside of a npc just standing there.
you act like doing this would take hours upon hours to do, it wouldn’t.
we already know they are working backwards from the 7.35 client, which means it has interactions and UI for guild banks already, all they have to do is add the npc, attach the triggers, and it works.
its not nearly as complex or time consuming as you want people to believe it is.
Code can be added at the end, but it is not always added at the end. In fact, code is more often added in the “middle” where the existing code that would use or access those additions already exists.
“They can change the entire guild banks system in any they have to so I can have that non vanilla QOL convenience I want.”
The framework for guild banks exist in 7.3.5, but the “clickable objects” do not exist in the 1.12 code. That 1.12 code would have to be changed to add those “clickable objects” and that would put guild banks squarely into that Pandora’s box of “changing the code could have unintended consequences”.