Reread the first part of my post. I want to be wrong about it. My primary concern lies in Blizz’s refusal to make a definitive statement. I suspect they’re sitting back and checking the data from whatever program they have monitoring the forums on the topic to see which way the wind is blowing. My secondary concern is that you can’t trust Blizzard so even if they made a statement I wouldn’t be 100% convinced.
If they’re sincere about bringing back a piece of gaming history and not caring how many play in Classic, there’s no way GBs are in the game. I hope they are. Until the moment of truth, I’ll do my part to keep the discussion going, circular though it may be.
I will be here also. I will be here asking Blizzard to provide a truer classic experience that is as close to vanilla as orcishly possible. I will be here to ensure that Blizzard does not confuse a lack of continued objections with apathy or acceptance.
The biggest difference between many of the advocates for guild banks and myself is that I will accept whatever decision Blizzard makes. That is not true of many of the pro guild bank advocates.
IF Blizzard were to make a statement that guild banks were going to be added, I would accept that. I would not like it, but I would accept their decision.
Most of the biggest advocates for guild banks, though, have already stated that even if Blizzard were to announce that guild banks would not be added to Classic, that they would continue to pester Blizzard to give them their non vanilla QOL convenience of guild banks.
one or 2 threads over a year is not serious, if even that.
In part sure,but there is a huge difference between one person maybe asking for flight 6 months ago compared to ongoing discussion of something like Guild Banks. Someone who is serious about something is going to do more than just say “Hey why can’t we have X, or wouldn’t X be nice?”
Maybe, but I would go further and say maybe just a couple of people have even done that.
I think those would almost count as trolling though.
That’s fine if you don’t understand why pretty much everything about the internet and computers today is different than it was 14 years ago you’ll just be confused
They most likely were. You know the poster type: one day visited, 1 topic created, and that 1 topic is usually quite inflamatory round here.
He knows it too. He’s just being himself and trying to tie all change requests together.
Next he will probably say changes cause global warming. LOL
Here’s another big difference: in all 13 of the capped threads and now this one. You see mostly the same people defending this idea.
Those posts/requests he’s talking about “seem” to be made by “different” avatars.
This is why our battletags(no numbers, just the tag) should be attached to our forum avatars.
This works for every other blizz forum and they don’t have any where near the level of crap posters as wow forums.
It would cut a lot of this “extra” non sense white noise out.
Um…“slippery slope” wasn’t the point. The point I was making was…
Over the 2 yrs-ish that Legacy/Classic have been a notion, that multitudes of aspects or additions, have been discussed. Pally Tanks, Druid Tanks, Guild Banks, Dual Spec, Flying, Soul Shards…and on and on. Just about, if not every aspect currently present in modern.
So the point was, all things being equal, all people being equal, each “group” or “camp” has the same footing as the next to have their post-vanilla wish added to Classic. You can’t add one and not another. You can’t say Guild Banks are more important and the rest of you can pound sand. None of those things were in vanilla. None of them. So if you add one, you must add them all. Fair is fair.
Thus what you are left with, is a 60-capped BfA. That was the point. Not slippery slope.
Oh yes you can. You can’t add changes based on "because you added guild banks now we should get flying "
Every considered change should be based on it’s own merits.
I hope some of you that are claiming this don’t have kids because if that is your parenting tactic those kids are set to do whatever they want because you gave them a lolipop when they were 3.
Now 15 year old Suzy wants to date a 30 yr old married man and Billy wants to take a gun to school.
But hey you gave them that lolipop so now you have to give them this too.
See how utterly stupid that sounds?
Fair is fair? You should go read the WM complaint threads if you realky think that.
It’s really funny you say that when GD for the past couple weeks is arguing about Horde bias and how now the alliance is favored.
Guess blizz doesnt share your “fair is fair” sentiment. If they did we wouldn’t have seen all of those racial nerfs herding people back and forth between factions.
Here’s something else. Limit just spent 1000’s of dollars faction transfering their entire guild to alliance to get those free 400ilvl pieces the alliance gets weekly.
Opening week of a raid tier and they get free heroic level gear.
Oh yea. That’s fair… LOL
Which is the exact same thing as what you said about changes in the game.
Fair is fair after all.
You wouldn’t give Billy a gun because you gave him a lolipop.
So why would you add flying because you added guild banks?
Every change should be measured in its own merits and effects on the game.
Funniest part about that is. It seems you no changers are the ones pushing for:
Which is why I referred to your point as a slippery slope demand. You are taking the slippery slope fallacy argument/fear to an even higher point of silliness by saying that not only might these destructive changes happen but they must happen.
That is simply not true. Making a non-gameplay related change does not demand multiple changes to gameplay.
Although your appeal to fairness is nice, there is nothing that demands fairness from blizzard. There is nothing that has to be fair or will be fair here. Blizzard doesn’t need to be fair to the no changes or the loads of changes or the only reasonable changes crowds.
Blizzard needs to make and, indeed what we all want them to make, is a great vanilla experience in a product that will be sustainable by Blizzard (I’m ignoring the existence of those who want classic to fail or somehow want classic to be just like retail and the we I refer to here are the core audience for classic). None of us will be happy if classic is a failed product or quickly unsupported by actiblizz.
I would go farther and posit that the greater majority would be joyous if post-naxx content was eventually released without hurting the museum piece of classic. None of the potential of classic or post classic content will be possible if classic is a failure because of draconian adherence to no changes at any cost.
Additionally, you should definitely consider Padrepwn’s response which gives a pretty thorough evisceration of your slippery demand and why it’s ludicrous.
“it’s not the slippery slope, it’s just if you make one change then you have to make all of them”
…
Wat…that’s exactly what the slippery slope is and it’s a complete fallacy of an argument.
If you give 5 year old boy a water gun it doesn’t mean he is going to get a real gun in highschool and shoot the place up. Same thing with changes. Adding a change does not mean every change will be added after that because the first change happened.
Your argument is completely emotionally based fearmongering to try and stop any change regardless of if it could have a good impact for the game (and so far guild banks seem to do just that based on 14 threads of this topic).
But hay your argument totally isn’t the slippery slope fallacy. . .
Not to mention that If the real concern is people creating their own guilds for guild bank access only that guild bank creation could be restricted to guilds that have at least 40 level 60s in it.
You really said that should need to be said, but unfortunately some low effort posters believe that repetition gives their arguments more merit.
![:cocktail:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/cocktail.png?v=6" ":cocktail:")
![:slight_smile:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/slight_smile.png?v=6" ":slight_smile:")