Guild Banks Pt. 14

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

That’s literally the slippery slope fallacy.

“If this small thing happens then the world will end!”

Changes should never be added because another change happened, they should each be discussed on their own merits.

You can intentionally and deliberately misrepresent the slippery slope all you want. That does not change the slippery slope.

The slippery slope is NOT “If this small thing happens then the world will end!”

It is “If this small thing happens, it sets a precedent for the next small thing and it becomes more likely that the next small thing will happen.”

Note, that is NOT “If A happens, then B will absolutely happen”. Once again, it is “If A happens, it sets a precedent for B to happen and it becomes more likely that B will happen.”

You already KNOW that, though, which is why you continually use those other non vanilla changes as precedents for your desired non vanilla QOL convenience of guild banks being added to classic. It is also why you continue to intentionally and deliberately misrepresent the slippery slope.

Now explain why A is related to B.

Correlation does no equal causation.

[Daesûl-thrall (Daesûl)]

Changes should never be added because another change happened, they should each be discussed on their own merits.

Ok. But Classic was never meant to be that. Classic was meant to be warts and all, as close as possible. Arguing on merit to add anything was never part of the intended project or it’s scope.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

Changes should never be added because another change happened, they should each be discussed on their own merits.

Ok. But Classic was never meant to be that. Classic was meant to be warts and all, as close as possible. Arguing on merit to add anything was never part of the intended project or it’s scope.

Except that blizzard is actively adding things and has said they will add things that are non core gamplay.

[Fesz-cenarius]

That’s literally the slippery slope fallacy.

“If this small thing happens then the world will end!”

Changes should never be added because another change happened, they should each be discussed on their own merits.

You can intentionally and deliberately misrepresent the slippery slope all you want. That does not change the slippery slope.

The slippery slope is NOT “If this small thing happens then the world will end!”

It is “If this small thing happens, it sets a precedent for the next small thing and it becomes more likely that the next small thing will happen.”

Note, that is NOT “If A happens, then B will absolutely happen”. Once again, it is “If A happens, it sets a precedent for B to happen and it becomes more likely that B will happen.”

You already KNOW that, though, which is why you continually use those other non vanilla changes as precedents for your desired non vanilla QOL convenience of guild banks being added to classic. It is also why you continue to intentionally and deliberately misrepresent the slippery slope.

Now explain why A is related to B.

Correlation does no equal causation.

I’ll give you two examples of pro guild bank advocates falling down the slippery slope.

At least one pro guild bank advocate has claimed that guild banks are a 'security feature" and tried to use guild banks as a precedent for making add-on functionality baseline in classic by claiming that baking add-on functionality into classic baseline would also be a security feature since "add-ons are a security risk. Guild banks have not even added to classic and already he is trying to show a relation between A (guild banks) and another one of his desired non vanilla QOL convenience changes B (add-on functionality being baked into classic baseline) in that they are both, in his words, “security features”.

You, yourself, have fallen down that slippery slope with a second example. Pro guild bank advocates are already trying to use sharding and loot trading as precedents for adding that non vanilla QOL convenience of guild banks to classic since sharding and loot trading are also non vanilla changes. In this case the relationship between A (sharding and loot trading) and B (guild banks) is that they are all non vanilla changes.

[Padrepwn-kiljaeden (Padrepwn)]

If that is truly the case and you are not trying to use them as precedents, I would expect that you will no longer be bringing up those other changes.

I suspect we won’t be hearing any more "blizz said authenticity either. That ship sailed.

I’m sure that you, and other pro guild bank advocates, will continue to being those changes up as precedents for your desired non vanilla QOL convenience change of guild banks, though.

Copypasta fluff.

I also do not expect those who continue to bring up those changes as precedents for further non vanilla changes to have the honesty to admit that they are trying to use them as precedents and they are treading down that slippery slope they claim does not exist.

More fluff however,

to have the honesty

You’ve shown you don’t.
See you went from break dancing to a limbo.
How low can you go?

[Daesûl-thrall (Daesûl)]

Except that blizzard is actively adding things and has said they will add things that are non core gamplay.

Brilliant. Which translates to “nothing”. gj

[Tuathaa-wyrmrest-accord (Tuathaa)]

In this case the relationship between A (sharding and loot trading) and B (guild banks) is that they are all non vanilla changes.

Sharding, loot trading, cross faction bnet chat (bliz is looking at this), report/squelch are all non classic things being added that does, will, can, affect core gameplay.
While it doesn’t exactly justify guild banks it does indeed blow a giant hole in the authentic, authenticity, orcishly possible or any other statements or defense you or blizzard can come up with

[Redheadchild-kul-tiras (Redheadchild)]

guild banks do offer security in 2 ways

1. they help discourage account sharing which is a security concern as well as TOS violation

2. they improve the security of the guilds resources by making it so you can clearly see if someone is abusing access to said resources for their own gain, and then remove their access, which guild banks alt system does not reliably do due to the logs being editable to lie.

they do improve security, you just refuse to accept this fact due to your vendetta against anything that is a QoL convenience in your eyes when guild banks are MUCH more than that. if guild banks were only QoL I wouldn’t be arguing in their favor.

[Redheadchild-kul-tiras (Redheadchild)]

it translates to an easy counter to the arguments of “classic = vanilla, warts and all” and similar arguments.

[Daesûl-thrall (Daesûl)]

LOL
So, because modern infrastructure, you get guild banks?

[Difford-nagrand (Difford)]

LOL
So, because modern infrastructure, you get guild banks?

That is what they’re hoping for or trying to get us to see…yes. I have tried countless times to say this is not a guarantee they will get them.

[Redheadchild-kul-tiras (Redheadchild)]

Loot trading is definitely not infrastructure.

And I’m not saying it means guild banks. What it does mean is “blizzard said” =/= what blizzard is doing. So the “blizzard said” argument against guild banks is not really an argument as it’s full of holes made by blizzards actions contradicting their word.

[Padrepwn-kiljaeden (Padrepwn)]

No one said they were guranteed. Well you can count my time travel RP post but if I’m wrong it’s because we’ve spawned an alternate timeline and have to go back to the future!
Got any plutonium?
Last trip the Dolorean ran out. I barely made it back. Lol

[Tuathaa-wyrmrest-accord (Tuathaa)]

runs on biofuel now

[Starman-zangarmarsh (Starman)]

@Mogar-stormrage

They’re not building the Intention of Vanilla. They’re building the Recreation of Vanilla.

Vanilla had sharding, loot trading and battle.net? Huh. I must have missed that.

[Fateweaver-misha (Fateweaver)]

Vanilla had sharding,

Blizzard confirmed sharding in Classic™? Huh. I must have missed that.

[Phront-moon-guard (Phront)]

Yes they change a lot in a positive way that doesn’t impact core gameplay.

Reminder: This is the attitude that created BfA.

I like BfA, but BfA and Classic should be kept as far apart as possible. Almost every system that exists in modern WoW should not exist in Classic, and that includes Guild Banks.

Argue for the luxurious conveniences all you like, argue for the “reduced GM stress (?)” too, but the fact remains: Guild Banks are an in-game mechanic with a visible in-game presence that did not exist in Classic. If Blizzard would have to add an NPC, or add a graphic on the wall, or add any other kind of interface/asset to the game that did not exist in Classic, in order to make a change, then that change shouldn’t be made.

It’s that simple.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

Yes they change a lot in a positive way that doesn’t impact core gameplay.

Reminder: This is the attitude that created BfA.

I like BfA, but BfA and Classic should be kept as far apart as possible. Almost every system that exists in modern WoW should not exist in Classic, and that includes Guild Banks.

Argue for the luxurious conveniences all you like, argue for the “reduced GM stress (?)” too, but the fact remains: Guild Banks are an in-game mechanic with a visible in-game presence that did not exist in Classic. If Blizzard would have to add an NPC, or add a graphic on the wall, or add any other kind of interface/asset to the game that did not exist in Classic, in order to make a change, then that change shouldn’t be made.

It’s that simple.

Right I forgot there were zero changes made between launch and 1.12.

[Phront-moon-guard (Phront)]

Right I forgot there were zero changes made between launch and 1.12.

Non-argument. The fact that vanilla changed during its development is absolutely one hundred percent irrelevant to Classic. Classic operates within the “Classic” timeframe, meaning that parts and features that existed at any point during the 1.0 to 1.12 versions of the game are fair game. You can advocate for 1.3 stuff all you like, or for the 1.7 version of Alterac Valley, etc. because all of those things are from the time span of 1.0 to 1.12. That’s what “WoW Classic” means in this context, as defined by Blizzard itself.

Guild Banks are from 2.3

Using your keen mathematical and logical mind, answer the following question:

Does the number 2.3 fall within the range of 1.0 to 1.12?

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to “Do Guild Banks belong in WoW Classic?”

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

Right I forgot there were zero changes made between launch and 1.12.

Non-argument. The fact that vanilla changed during its development is absolutely one hundred percent irrelevant to Classic. Classic operates within the “Classic” timeframe, meaning that parts and features that existed at any point during the 1.0 to 1.12 versions of the game are fair game. You can advocate for 1.3 stuff all you like, or for the 1.7 version of Alterac Valley, etc. because all of those things are from the time span of 1.0 to 1.12. That’s what “WoW Classic” means in this context, as defined by Blizzard itself.

Guild Banks are from 2.3

Using your keen mathematical and logical mind, answer the following question:

Does the number 2.3 fall within the range of 1.0 to 1.12?

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to “Do Guild Banks belong in WoW Classic?”

/shrug if you think 1.12 was a perfect game with no room for improvement that’s fine.

As for your question, yes guild banks do belong in classic, provide a better reason than they weren’t in by 1.12 if you don’t want them in.