Guild Banks Pt. 14

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
837

Classic and retail may be different games, but they are run by the SAME COMPANY.

838

Correct and many of the changes you seem to hate were because of issues that were acknowledged and fixed by the same devs you seem to love for making vanilla.

1 Like
839

Not every change or “QOL” addition was a “fix for an issue acknowledged by the devs”, though.

For example, according to Blizzard in an interview, guild banks were added due to the convenience that they brought and the fact they they are more convenient than guild bank alts.

Now, as to changes that might have been “fixes for issues that were acknowledged by the devs”, when were those fixes implemented?

Were they implemented during vanilla? If so, let’s discuss them.

Were they implemented AFTER vanilla? If so, then they should not be part of Classic unless they were bug or true actual exploit fixes, IMO.

1 Like
840

With such a broad sweeping statement i will give a broad sweeping comment.

If you truly believe this then why are you not as outspoken when it comes loot trading, bnet chat, and right click report/squelch

Not trying to troll but it seems odd you use this argument against guils banks but seen kind of ok with the other things (or not as outspoken) which have the same and in case if bnet chat more of an affect on game play

2 Likes
841

Were LCD’s the standard in vanilla, were reliable high speed internet connections the normal in vanilla? Oh
 wait a lot of things are going to be different about classic.

3 Likes
842

Blizzard does not control those items

843

So? Those kind of things are going to make classic different than vanilla regardless of what blizzard does or does not do.

844

Big difference.
All blizzard can do is release a product as close to original as possible after that its up to you to relive your experinece blizzard has done their part.

845

And it’s impossible to relive that experience for reasons that are as you stated completely out of blizzard’s hands, I don’t expect to so I won’t be disappointed when the impossible doesn’t happen.

1 Like
846

That doesn’t mean the changes were correct/good for the game. Look at LFD-implemented to “correct” the issue of people having to “waste time” putting together a party and traveling to the instance. Outcome: destroyed any semblance of self-policing in the community and consequently greatly diminished the overall behavior level. It also turned dungeons into AoE lolfests because any remotely challenging stuff was swiftly nerfed because many of the random groups couldn’t handle any sort of challenge


It “fixed” one issue acknowledged by the devs and contributed several more that made the game far worse than the one it was fixing


847

Yes one of the great things about hide sight is we know what changes work and what doesn’t. LFD has some very bad repercussions and server mergers would have been a better solution.

But in the case of guild banks we can also look back and see that they were overwhelmingly positive.

1 Like
848

Meh, the only 2 that people ever got serious about are this one and Transmog, we would get a random ask every now and then for everything else, nothing ever serious.

4 Likes
849

You must have missed my posts opposing loot sharing, BNET chat in Classic and the auto squelch being tied to right click report.

I oppose all of those.

1 Like
850

IMO, those “random asks” WERE “serious” requests.

YOU may define “serious” only as “many people request this”, but that is not how I would define “serious” with regards to requests for non vanilla QOL convenience changes.

I would define “serious” as “not trolling” or “sincere”. IMO, it matters not whether there are 2 people sincerely asking for NON vanilla QOL convenience X or 200 people sincerely asking for that non vanilla QOL convenience.

Perhaps, though, a better word than “serious” would have been “sincere”. There have been people sincerely asking for every one of those changes mentioned by DaesĂ»l.

851

Especially the ones made by posters with no post history and are rarely seen again or when you do see them it’s another controversial topic or opinion right?
“Serious” LOL.

2 Likes
852

This is the most popular thread in months, hopefully Blizzard has taken notice. Thanks everyone for keeping the conversation going.

4 Likes
853

Maybe I should have said “Many of those ‘random asks’ WERE ‘serious’ requests.”

854

Hopefully, the only things Blizzard has noticed are that guild banks were NEVER part of vanilla, adding the non vanilla QOL convenience of guild banks to classic would not be as close to vanilla as orcishly possible and that vanilla not only survived without guild banks, but thrived without them.

855

While I hope I’m wrong, I find the fact they have yet to make a definitive statement to be a hint that GBs will end up in the game. They’ve been fairly forward about the things that definitely won’t be in the game. They shot the idea of transmog down in a hurry and there’s been enough circular debate on this topic for Blizzard to see the community (at least the forum community) is and will almost certainly remain divided.

856

Then why add that non vanilla QOL convenience change? Why give pro changers a precedent for further non vanilla QOL convenience changes?

After all, we’ve already seen at least one person try to use guild banks as a precedent for baking add-on functionality into Classic baseline.