Um, no.
Blizzard asked for community feedback for both in-and-out-of-vanilla. We’re giving it. Thanks for playing.
People seem to forget that one little thing - BLIZZARD ASKED FOR FEEDBACK.
“These decisions will really be made by the kind of discussions we see here, so… if folks want a true 1:1 Vanilla experience, then we want to see the discussion of that. If people think there should be changes here or there, then we’ll want to see that too.”
Not to me.
Those who are attempting to bargain with Blizzard in their desperation, hoping that Blizzard might give them their desired non vanilla QOL convenience change, apparently seem to think that Blizzard might be negotiating.
LOL.
Tell ya what add gbanks leave out loot sharding and we will throw in some authentic CE pets for everyone.
Seems legit.
Once again, you leave out the important part of that Blue post:
"That’s kind of the beauty of it - I don’t think anything has necessarily been decided. "
The"I don’t think" being an indication that it is personal opinion.
Once again, we have a blue’s personal opinion being twisted into an official Blizzard request for feedback. Why am I not surprised?
You seem confused. Suggesting something and then giving valid reasoning behind that suggestion is neither bargaining nor negotiating anything.
I guess the “Blizzard, go ahead and redesign the guild bank system so that guild banks function in a way that they have never previously functioned if that will get you to add that non vanilla QOL convenience change to classic” is not trying to negotiate or bargain?
Correct, it’s offering a suggestion.
The redesign of guild banks suggestions were all due to your side’s “concerns of inventory management.” LOL
That was the only “negotiation.”
He’s not confused. He’s square dancing. Hold on he’s going to run this right back around in a circle.
Right back to inventory management or he will misrepresent something you’ve said in an attempt to draw out your anger.
It’s funny once you see all of his tactics.
I call it Ratarobics. He’s a great dancer too. Watch him do the worm. Lol
so we need to disable bnet authentificator, to intentionally weakened security already ;
and to provide someone a full access not only for wow account but for every bnet connected game AND for your bnet control panel with subscriptions control, financial info, etc
and you compleately blind to see why it was wrong and to what kind of bad things it could lead
just image GM requests like :
“plz help me, my trusted friend give my pass to another guildmate who canceled my prepaid subscription”
10/10 GM’s facepalms
Even more Ironic is that it was justification for classic not being a cash grab. You know. Blizz giving back to the community and all.
Go from wall of No for over a decade because not financially feasible/yiu think you do but you don’t. To “important piece of gaming history.”
Uh huh.
But, I thought you said the “pros” had never been countered?
If the “pros” had never been countered, there would have been no need to redesign guild banks, would there?
Try to justify it any way you want, but trying to bargain or negotiate is still trying to bargain or negotiate. Your desperation is showing.
Not once in all the times I helped negotiate a contract between our union and our employer did I ever give a “suggestion”. We were negotiating.
call it what you will, but negotiating is still negotiating.
Ya know what the redesign suggestions were in reponse to.
Padre exits as The Steve Miller Band’s Dance Dance Dance starts to play and Fez starts doing the Carlton
Do you see Blizzard here negotiating the terms of Guild Banks with us? You seem confused.
There’s no need to redesign anything, the cases people are using for why guild banks would need redesign are so absurd that of course noone cares if they were implemented or not.
read the last 13 threads on the subject primarily the first 3
Debuff limits affect core gameplay guild banks do not
Fesz, you have never negotiated anything in this thread. Every one of your posts has been a reworded version of the same post: “It wasn’t in vanilla!! REEEEEEEE”
Correct…sort of. As far as I’m aware, I was the one that suggested that limitations could be put on the guild bank system so that it more closely reflected the functionality offered by guild bank alts, ie. not linking them, just having them in one city, etc.
That was more my initial thoughts on it rather than any sort of negotiation. I don’t think that any change that makes things ‘easier’ should be implemented; I just think that guild bank alts are a horrible workaround that could easily be replaced by a more appropriate system without having any effect on the end user.
If we pretend that Blizzard decided to implement that, the only people arguing for guild bank alts over a single, non-linked guild bank in IF/Org, would have to be people who are intending to use the old system to rip people off. But we don’t know what Blizz will decide to do so all we can do is talk about possibilities, and in Fesz’ case, repeat ourselves hundreds of times.
Guild banks existed in practice, not design through a player made work around due to a lack of a system in place.
This player made work around was known to have people abusing it for personal gain as I’ve mentioned before.
And if you really want I can bring up Eve online where someone made a huge amount of real world cash by scamming thousands of players. And he got away with it too, because mmo games leave a large amount of money to be taken with transparency to where you can’t track down the scammer that just ripped you off for real world $$$.
That is why I personally push for guild banks. It won’t stop the initial scam, but it can stop repeat scams from people not even knowing their being scammed because of there being no reliable logging system with guild bank alts.