Sure and they also said they are considering(and are in fact making) changes that do not impact core game play.
1 Like
You define “core game play” in a manner that would exclude dual spec and class balance, so those non vanilla changes could be added without impacting core game play.
I have a different definition of core game play.
I doubt that either one of our definitions match Blizzard’s definition.
vanilla was a very rushed product. we have seen that guild banks and other things were meant for vanilla, however it was rushed and much had to be done as the game was running.
guild banks got pushed back in favor of making the game playable, have some of the content it was meant to have, exc.
when vanilla launched there was a lot of content that got delayed due to release dates, and far more stress on the server than what was expected.
they chose to fix what was needed first.
so they were busy putting the roads in still so they had to push off the ‘car’ that is guild banks to later. there’s a priority for things, and guild banks were lower on the list due to them needing to make the game playable.
2 Likes
/shrug we’ll see. Either way it’s up to blizzard and the tired old mantra of well it wasn’t that way in vanilla doesn’t matter.
Defend or oppose an idea on it’s actual merits or you have no valid argument.
2 Likes
logging in and out of a multitude of alts is not a core gameplay mechanic, sorry. how fast you kill stuff and how, defiantly is, having to go back to town to adapt your talents to a new situation is core game play, but logging in and out of alts. that’s not core gameplay.
1 Like
They’re not building the Intention of Vanilla. They’re building the Recreation of Vanilla. Those intentions made it into the game one way or another over time. When a TBC server comes out, there will be guild banks. But it won’t be in Classic.
To quote a Classic dev, “It’s not our game to change.”
1 Like
Again with the claim that guild banks “were meant for vanilla”, yet even though you have been asked to substantiate that claim, you have so far not done so. IN fact, the only statement from Blizzard was that guild banks were added for the convenience they bring.
There was nothing in that statement about security, account sharing, or that guild banks were “meant for vanilla”.
TBC had been out for almost 10 months before guild banks were added. 12 major patches in vanilla, an expansion and two major patches into that expansion were implemented before guild banks were added in the third major patch in TBC.
Provide an official Blizzard statement that guild banks were “meant for vanilla”.
Otherwise, it would seem to be obvious that you are deliberately being less than honest in a vain effort to further your goal of seeing your desired non vanilla QOL convenience change of guild banks added to classic.
Then why are they changing it?
1 Like
That is your definition.
My definition is different.
Guild banks are not just simply “logging in and out” as you well know.
We’ll just have to wait and see how Blizzard defines “core game play” and whether all those other aspects of guild banks, such as bypassing that one hour delay in the mail system, affect what they consider core game play.
Obviously it’s not irrelevant to blizz. They’ve added a few now based on their own merits. Yes.
I’ve not used the already known and possible changes as a reason to add guild banks.
I have however pointed out that the “blizz said” is a pretty hollow arguement.
Now if you want to discuss how gbanks are less of an impact on core gameplay than the already known and possible changes.
We can do that too.
Gbanks are less of an impact than the known and possible changes to *core" gameplay.
Now then. My turn for an honest question.
Maybe you’ll answer…My crystal ball says no and we’re about to see Fez do some break dancing:
Is it ok to purposely misqoute someone to change the context of they said to support your view.
Nevermind. Your answer is in black and white. We all know it’s a rat “special”.
Maybe that’s why I liked your old avatar so much. It was quite telling.
Still got those parachute pants old chap? LOL
3 Likes
They did. They said leveling, questing, and combat.
No mention of inventory management.
3 Likes
But those other changes would be irrelevant in regards to guild banks, would they not? Yet, you keep bringing them up as precedents for your desired non vanilla convenience change of guild banks.
You’ve used the existing changes as PRECEDENTS for further non vanilla QOL convenience changes, including guild banks.
Source?
Guild banks affect a lot more than “inventory management”, as you well know.
Correct they also improve the social aspect of guilds.
1 Like
No, you’re attempting to create a motive that doesn’t exist. We simply state they’re making changes as a counterpoint to the lie that you and Mogar spread, the lie that they’re not making any changes. We’ve been asking for these changes BEFORE we knew that they were already making some changes.
Stop lying, stop manipulating.
4 Likes
We used those existing changes to show you what blizzard was doing, regardless of what they said.
Your argument was “blizzard said” our rebutle to that is “blizzard already went against their own word” not to say “this means more changes” but to say that because blizzard said something doesn’t mean it’s a reason not to add guild banks, because they went against their own word.
The changes made don’t justify making more. They just throw your argument of “but they said” into the dirt because it holds no merit based on blizzards ACTIONS showing that their word is not a stop all to changes.
4 Likes
They also reduce player interaction by removing the need to actually meet to trade.
No they improve player interaction because everyone is involved in the guild resources.
Then why continue to being them up as a precedent for further non vanilla changes?
That may have been your experience, just as what I stated was my experience.
Our experiences apparently counter each other.
1 Like