they have plenty of advantages, like the uneditable log, the removal of people feeling pressured into sharing the guild bank alt account (which is both a security risk and against ToS), and it makes it easier for blizzard to set a policy on guild banks as its easier to distinguish INTENT of the donations which makes it easier to reach a conclusion on the ticket that is favoring to the community vs the thief’s because it wasn’t donated to an individual but a communities storage.
these facts have been presented to you numbers times and you chose to ignore them.
time and resources??? do you have any idea how easy it is to add an npc, put a trigger on it, and your done? the guild bank UI is already in the client. refer to my previous post.
yes, ignore the fact that its been suggested to only have it in ONE city per faction. also ignore the fact people got around this issue by having warlock alts in major cities. heck I even saw people selling a summoning service back in vanilla from a guild named “will summon” that was a bunch of warlocks selling summons to popular places, which included major cities. with no summoning stones in classic I expect this to still happen even with guild banks as people will buy summons to dungeons, raids, major cities, exc.
nice personal attack, running out of arguments again?
again, refer to my comment on the difference between changing lines of code and ADDING them.
there is a huge difference of what changing lines of code can do to cause errors, and making a new line. but again you ignore this, because your not really here to discuss this, your here to continue the circle of trolling by trying to bring up the same defeated arguments.
YOU “suggested” that the guild bank system be changed to limit the guild bank to one major city. Is that not a change from the current guild bank system?
YOU “suggested” that the “clickable object” be changed to an NPC or a “treasure chest”. Is that not a change from the current guild bank system?
Did you not suggest those changes to the current guild bank system in an attempt to get Blizzard to add this one of your pet non vanilla QOL convenience changes to Classic?
Again, refer to my point about additions to code more often being added in the areas where those additions would be accessed by the existing code, which is not at the end. Even if those additions were placed at the end, if you have ever done any programming, you would know that even adding lines of code at the end can have unforeseen consequences.
Those were example criteria for changes in general. If you read the post properly, before launching into another tirade about things that have already been discussed and countered, you would have picked that up.
Guild banks ARE linked and available in every major city.
Are you “suggesting” that they not only add a QOL convenience that was NEVER in vanilla to Classic, but spend time and resources to redesign that system so that it works in a manner that it has never worked for no reason other than to see that non vanilla QOL convenience added to Classic?
Entirely relevant when they have also said they’re are open to making changes that don’t impact core gameplay and we have several examples of exactly that.
Man, you need to stop feeding and let it go. There’s no chance guild banks will be in Classic, so why worry about it?
People completely ignoring everything Ion says is simply hilarious. I’m not going to argue with someone who points at a car and says, “That’s a skateboard!” It might make me laugh, but nothing constructive will come of that conversation.
Am I the only who finds it ironic, to say the least, that there are many pro guild bank advocates who want to claim that the slippery slope does not exist, but then want to use sharding and loot trading being non vanilla changes in order to try to justify adding the non vanilla QOL convenience change of guild banks?
I think it’s more of an issue that no changers are turning a blind eye to loot sharing, bnet chat, and sharding and stating the whole “blizzard said” argument.
In light of the fact blizzard does this kind of stuff all the time. Say one thing and do another that is.
Well sure if you take what is being said completely out of context to fit your view.
I find it ironic that you guys are now saying “but blizz said” and ignoring the fact that they have already gone against exactly what they said.
They have already used moderrn solutions for Vanilla problems.
That is what I’m saying.
Oh and the endless comments in the forums about not trusting what blizz says.
That is pretty ironic as well now that the new forum catch phrase is “Blizz said”.
Like they haven’t made it clear they reserve the right to change their mind at the corporation’s discretion. LOL
So honestly I’m not sure if that’s ironic or…what’s that other word… LOL
I’m not saying add guild banks because you’re adding loot share.
Pretty big diference.
Which just proves to me exactly how wilfully ignorant people will be to convince themselves they are right in their positions.
The longer the debate goes on, the more I think about the both the topic and concept of convenience. I feel as though Blizzard is going to try and make things as maintenance free (convenient for them) for themselves as possible while as the same time not making it so convenient for players that it ruins the flavor of the original and diminishes its appeal.
I’ve read (though I don’t know it to be true) that many changes over the years with regards to security have made account sharing much more difficult. If that is indeed the case, I fear that guild banks are an inevitability even if they don’t appear right away. My reasoning: While I would love to believe that Blizzard doesn’t care if Classic ends up with 10 regular players, I have yet to see much that leads me to believe that is indeed the case. And, setting my personal biases regarding raiders aside, what I’ve seen during my time playing is that raiders can be both remarkably patient (thought not always waiting with a smile) and persistent.
For myself, I’m on the record (if not on this character then on another) as being anti guild banks. It’s not a deal breaker. It’s not going to cause women and children to wail and men to gnash their teeth at the sky. However, if they are on the table as a possibility, I do hope Blizzard at the very least holds off on them for a few months to get the feel of the room because while they may not be in at the start, if they get in there’s no way in hell that they’re coming out.
That is exactly what the slippery slope means. Each non vanilla change not only sets a precedent for further non vanilla changes, but also makes it easier to justify those further non vanilla changes.
"We’re already using modern solutions for vanilla problems, so why not use the “modern solution” of guild banks?
Which is exactly why many are opposed to sharding in even a limited fashion.