The counter-argument isn’t discredited, though. Not only are those changes not set in stone, but especially when it comes to sharding, Blizzard understands how sensitive the issue is. They’ve specified a few times how sharding is a “maybe” and “only when server load would otherwise harm the game.” They also go out of their way to recognize that it’s a scary slippery-slope proposition, reminding us that they know how we feel.
They clarify that they might use it, sparingly, during the launch window, if the servers become too unstable otherwise. They have also said that they understand the importance of players being visible to one another, and the importance of there only ever being “One Kazzak at a time.”
This is a “change” suggested as a server stability band-aid and not a long-term gameplay change. Tell me again how possible usage of sharding is the same as guild banks.
Which is basically a blank check for adding sharding “when server load would otherwise harm the game”.
Wpvp, city raids, and the AQ event spring right to mind.
Now that world boss scenario does raise some questions doesn’t it.
They are worried about starting zones being a mess and people competing over quest mobs.
Three+ 40 man raids fighting over one mob ?
Yea that sounds like a worse mess than the starting zones. I can’t wait for it! Bring that on!
How long will that take to melt a server? LOL
I say let’s melt some servers! No sharding!
No, they’re trying to make their case for only using it when the servers would otherwise explode. The modern server framework can handle a lot more than the old one could–that’s one of the major benefits to using an updated system. Besides, people are already violently opposed to sharding, even in the limited form proposed already–evidence is all around this forum.
Can you imagine the uproar if people got sharded out of a city raid, or the AQ opening event? Those are times where it definitely will not be acceptable.
Guild banks are a core gameplay change. They would drastically alter inventory management and guild social dynamics. To argue otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.
For starters, we have assurances that sharding would only be used in situations of extreme stress during the launch window. Further, sharding can be switched off easily whereas guild banks are a permanent fixture.
This is a “change” suggested as a server stability band-aid and not a long-term gameplay change. Tell me again how possible usage of sharding is the same as guild banks.
I’m going to use a baby example here. A baby imprints in like the first few minutes or some such when it see’s it’s mother. The Classic WoW community needs to connect to each other immediately on launch. Those first few minutes, the first quest, the first group, the first kill. Those social interactions and the trust it creates matter and sharding changes it in a potentially negative way. You’re going to be leveling with the same people for a while, seeing the same person in Fargodeep Mine. You may not group with them but you’ll remember seeing them.
Guild banks represent a solution to a social challenge for a guild. It trivializes the logistics of keeping track of who has what items and who the guild trusts among it’s members. I understand that it’s a QoL change that is generally considered beneficial to guilds. However for Classic it should be replicating the old game as genuinely as possible. This means including the difficult social/logistic challenges of managing a multi-character guild bank.
Trust me, I know. I hate the idea of sharding. I’m only okay with it if Blizzard is true to their word and only uses it when the alternative would be a crashed server. I don’t want to see any sharding at all; I’d rather see them beef up the server strength instead of damaging the gameplay experience. But because it is kind of a “side project” and the main game takes priority, I understand (begrudgingly) that some stop-gap measures might be taken to ensure that the game is playable at launch.
If I see sharding past the first week, you can bet that I’ll be on these forums complaining about it, though.
For over a year people have been making suggestions about how to keep Classic healthy over time. Flying, mogging, all those other things have been off the table because they take away from what Classic is.
Blizzard, not the community, suggested sharding and loot trading.
There are three things that have sifted out over time: guild banks, class balancing, and raid gating to preserve the inability to step right into Naxx when alts/new people ding 60 a while after launch.
All those community-related items are changes, yes, but changes meant to preserve Classic’s life.
If the starting zones can cause a server to explode than I’m sure the AQ event, wpvp, world bosses and city raids coukd at the very least catch them on fire.
They have already given you their reasoning and it’s a blank check to add it “whenever they say it’s needed”.
Yes. It can. Because everything is sharded. LOL
Honestly it went over far better than I would have expected. Being a major game play change like that and all.
Even me as someone who opposes it can see the benefits of it.
I just don’t want it.
That is funny because blizz said: “when server load would otherwise harm the game.”
Have not heard one mention of inventory management being core gameplay. They did say leveling up, questing, and combat though.
They also assured us we would never get Vanilla. They also assured RP realms woukd never be sharded. They also said authentic and then went on to add a bunch of modern solutions for Vanilla problems.
Yea sorry. Not putting much stock in blizz assurances. This is just a few. Over 14 years there is more they have said and went against than things they have said and stuck to.
A permanent fixture that still impacts the game less.
It’s a tiny segment of the same 4-5 players all saying the same thing over and over again. I’ve only been around this place for a couple of months, but I’ve seen Ziryus arguing for all kinds of changes the whole time. Padre’s not as bad but it seems like he has a fixation on guild banks (which aren’t gonna be in the game.)
Don’t mistake a small handful of loud posters for being a “lively discussion” about a potential addition. The vast majority are just tired of arguing with them about it, so they let them all agree with one another in peace. I, on the other hand, can’t just let them agree with each other, haha.
Call it a personal weakness, but I feel the need to call them out.
And if/when sharding happens at a bad time, they’ll be faced with a lot of unhappy customers. Don’t mistake my begrudging permission as being an unconditional surrender. They’re on thin ice with sharding.
If this is your stance, then do you advocate for crafting mats stacking to 200 as well? Because that’s another “inventory management” change.
I just don’t get you. You can somehow simultaneously argue that guild banks don’t impact the core gameplay experience, yet turn around and argue that we need them.
One or the other, dude, the arguments aren’t compatible with each other. Do they change nothing, or do we need them? Pick one.
If it were a large amount of players arguing for guild banks, I feel like this topic with over 3.5k views and a thousand replies might’ve merited more than 9 likes on its initial post, and would have more than 4-5 people in here arguing the merits instead of saying no.