Guild Banks Pt. 9999 ; Guild banks wont be in Classic

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

Sure there is, as soon as you accept that classic will never be the same as vanilla you can accept trying to make classic the best classic can be.

No Ziryus, this is not about changing things, its about bringing back what was.

If you don’t like that, then you’re looking for a different game. TBC perhaps? It will go live eventually, and you know that.

/shrug just don’t complain when classic isn’t exactly the same as vanilla.

[Starman-zangarmarsh (Starman)]

Things we asked for in 2005 that did not exist in game in 2005 are not authentic to the original game.

Irrelevant, because I can still discuss is as per Blizzard’s statement.

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

We know it’s not going to be exact. After all we have battle.net integration, improved graphics options, and loot trading as well as bug fixes.

But a few changes does not mean we can green light balancing classes, adding banks, and whatever else people want.

People used to laugh at no changers and say that slippery slope was a fallacy, yet now those same people are trying to use changes to get other changes made.

The goal is to be as authentic as possible, and if we start changing everything because someone doesn’t like it, all were going to get is retail stuck at level 60.

[Anadann-icecrown]

1. I’m not a pro-changer. I’ve been consistent in my opposition to guild banks as well as my opinion that they’re undesirable, but not something that will keep me from playing Classic when it’s released.

2. The topic wasn’t switched to boxing. Padre made a post using a boxing reference for comparison purposes and I commented on it. He then responded to my comment. Had I wished for the boxing line of conversation to continue, I would have followed up Padre’s post by saying that Tommy Morrison got knocked out by Ray Mercer and Tyson in his prime was a much better boxer and puncher than Mercer. Farrah didn’t put it back on topic. It ended because I chose to let it end.

3. While I appreciate the passion with which both sides are arguing their opinions, this thread is becoming a joke. That title is about half a heartbeat away from going full on Alex Jones and saying that guild banks are a conspiracy of the global elite, the culling of Stratholme was staged and Arthas is putting things in the water to change the murlocs.

4. If we’re going to fight to protect the sanctity of Vanilla, then pray it doesn’t do very well or you better get your “No TBC. Not now. Not ever.” signs out now to protest because TBC had a huge XP nerf on 11-60 XP requirements. Unless of course you want to change TBC should a classic TBC server ever be redone. But I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do that.

#WoWwasaconstantlyevolvingecosystemwherechangeswereloggednumericallyforpurposesofreferenceandwhileimagainstguildbanksimalsoagainstpeoplewhoactlikeachangetotheirfavoritegamewillbringabouttheendofentertainmentasweknowit

Thank you and have a nice day.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

@Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel

We know it’s not going to be exact. After all we have battle.net integration, improved graphics options, and loot trading as well as bug fixes.

But a few changes does not mean we can green light balancing classes, adding banks, and whatever else people want.

People used to laugh at no changers and say that slippery slope was a fallacy, yet now those same people are trying to use changes to get other changes made.

The goal is to be as authentic as possible, and if we start changing everything because someone doesn’t like it, all were going to get is retail stuck at level 60.

What it does mean is that we can discuss changes on an individual basis, something which blizzard is also doing.

And as such until blizzard announces a final version of classic or announces they won’t consider anything else, just saying no changes without a valid reason why is a meaningless argument.

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

@Ziryus-doomhammer

@Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel

We know it’s not going to be exact. After all we have battle.net integration, improved graphics options, and loot trading as well as bug fixes.

But a few changes does not mean we can green light balancing classes, adding banks, and whatever else people want.

People used to laugh at no changers and say that slippery slope was a fallacy, yet now those same people are trying to use changes to get other changes made.

The goal is to be as authentic as possible, and if we start changing everything because someone doesn’t like it, all were going to get is retail stuck at level 60.

What it does mean is that we can discuss changes on an individual basis, something which blizzard is also doing.

And as such until blizzard announces a final version of classic or announces they won’t consider anything else, just saying no changes without a valid reason why is a meaningless argument.

Go ahead. They already said no to balance, LFD and LFR, transmog, collections, and flying though so keep tg at in mind.

Furthermore the goal is authentic. So good luck with suggesting anything way out there.

You go ahead and talk about banks.

[Fesz-cenarius]

@Redheadchild-kul-tiras

Just to point out, the thread he made has a different purpose than the guild bank pt 14.

His new thread is basically there for “voting” for if people would play classic with guild banks. The guild bank aprt 14 is a thread for debating the merits of guild banks.

While both are about guild banks in general they have very different purposes.

Wasn’t made for debate?

Allow me to quote the creator of that thread:

@Padrepwn-kiljaeden

How do they effect core gameplay? And do they make blizz’s job easier?

Are you going to tell us all that those are not questions asking for debate?

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

@Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel

@Ziryus-doomhammer

@Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel

We know it’s not going to be exact. After all we have battle.net integration, improved graphics options, and loot trading as well as bug fixes.

But a few changes does not mean we can green light balancing classes, adding banks, and whatever else people want.

People used to laugh at no changers and say that slippery slope was a fallacy, yet now those same people are trying to use changes to get other changes made.

The goal is to be as authentic as possible, and if we start changing everything because someone doesn’t like it, all were going to get is retail stuck at level 60.

What it does mean is that we can discuss changes on an individual basis, something which blizzard is also doing.

And as such until blizzard announces a final version of classic or announces they won’t consider anything else, just saying no changes without a valid reason why is a meaningless argument.

Go ahead. They already said no to balance, LFD and LFR, transmog, collections, and flying though so keep tg at in mind.

Furthermore the goal is authentic. So good luck with suggesting anything way out there.

You go ahead and talk about banks.

I’m sure guild banks will keep getting talked about until we get an answer from blizzard one way or the other.

[Matcauthon-steamwheedle-cartel (Matcauthon)]

Okay and that’s fine, have fun with that.

Good luck on your crusade for balance changes or dual spec though.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

Okay and that’s fine, have fun with that.

Good luck on your crusade for balance changes or dual spec though.

They’ve already said no to balance, no word on dual spec though.

But since this is a guild bank thread we should be talking about why guild banks do not change core game play but are very welcome to classic.

[Fesz-cenarius]

So what? Neither are the monitors or internet connections I play on. Classic is never going to be exactly like vanilla.

I had broadband and a high quality PC in Vanilla. You didn’t; big deal. The hardware has never been “equal” and never will be.

The features list on the other hand was equal and should always remains the same; these are two different categories entirely, and there is no logical way for you to conflate the two.

Sure there is, as soon as you accept that classic will never be the same as vanilla you can accept trying to make classic the best classic can be.

You’re still pushing to try to see classic made as far from vanilla a possible, I see.

It must really stick in your craw that you lost your crusade to prevent Classic from even being made.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

So what? Neither are the monitors or internet connections I play on. Classic is never going to be exactly like vanilla.

I had broadband and a high quality PC in Vanilla. You didn’t; big deal. The hardware has never been “equal” and never will be.

The features list on the other hand was equal and should always remains the same; these are two different categories entirely, and there is no logical way for you to conflate the two.

Sure there is, as soon as you accept that classic will never be the same as vanilla you can accept trying to make classic the best classic can be.

You’re still pushing to try to see classic made as far from vanilla a possible, I see.

It must really stick in your craw that you lost your crusade to prevent Classic from even being made.

Not as much as it seems to annoy you that classic will not be the same as vanilla

[Fesz-cenarius]

4. If we’re going to fight to protect the sanctity of Vanilla, then pray it doesn’t do very well or you better get your “No TBC. Not now. Not ever.” signs out now to protest because TBC had a huge XP nerf on 11-60 XP requirements. Unless of course you want to change TBC should a classic TBC server ever be redone. But I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do that.

There is no reason why TBC servers could not be produced independently of Classic servers.

Those choosing to play on “authentic” TBC servers could do so, with all their QOL conveniences, including that nerfed XP and fast track to 70.

[Padrepwn-kiljaeden (Padrepwn)]

@Fesz-cenarius

Are you going to tell us all that those are not questions asking for debate?

So you’re going to misrepresent what my intentions were with that thread even though their stated in the OP which i edited after another poster suggested I was trying to discourage discussion by asking a simple yes or no question but ignore the reasoning given and those statements between me and the other posters?

LOL.
Oh boy you all need to just stop.

It’s a simple yes or no question.
Leave reasoning or don’t but at tge end of the day and through all the mental gymnastics/reasoning it’s still just a simple yes or no question.

Like I said.

Guild Banks Pt. 9999 ; Guild banks wont be in Classic

Funny this thread hasn’t been flagged for spam as a repeat topic. Guess we have a good idea which side abuses that “feature”…the same side saying right click report in game will be abused. LOL Absolutely priceless. Anyways since you want discussion and your own thread. Here we go: If you fail to see guild banks as anything but in the spirit of Vanilla you don’t understand the spirit of Vanilla or maybe some do understand the free gold stream that guild bank alts (gba’s hench forth). The…

This is my original reply to this OP.
Far as I and anyone with a 3rd grade reading comprehension can see.
None of my points have been countered through any of this clusterbomb shagin wagon of a thread.

So you want discussion? Discuss, counter refute. Whatever but if all any of you have is misrepresentation, slander, and a bunch of troll responses?

In the words of the immortal Tupac Shakur:
We can do this like gangstas and slug it out or we can do this like punks and punk it out!
Pull your strap on me? Homie you better kill me…

Padre exits as 2pac’s (aka Makavelli) Bomb First starts to play

[Anadann-icecrown]

That was the point of my hashtag. WoW was constantly evolving and to be true to authentic versions of any particular moment of the timeline is to accept the fact that other parts are going to be changed. One of the purposes of TBC was to encourage people to move on from Vanilla. A truly authentic TBC server has to serve the same purpose. It’s a silly point to argue, but it demonstrates the risk of excessively rigid adherence to a concept.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

That was the point of my hashtag. WoW was constantly evolving and to be true to authentic versions of any particular moment of the timeline is to accept the fact that other parts are going to be changed. One of the purposes of TBC was to encourage people to move on from Vanilla. A truly authentic TBC server has to serve the same purpose. It’s a silly point to argue, but it demonstrates the risk of excessively rigid adherence to a concept.

But #nochange has the whole everything was perfect in vanilla and time machines exist going for it. Kind of hard to fight against those odds.

[Anadann-icecrown]

@Anadann-icecrown

I seem to remember having read someplace that Blizzard was planning on releasing content in bunches over a period of time. Why not launch the game without them, see how it goes and, if needed, include them as part of a content bundle?

I propose this for a specific reason. This is the the first time that WoW will exist as a static universe. In other words, there will come a point where there is no gear replacement as old Vanilla gear is made obsolete by TBC gear. Sooner or later, there will be an effect downstream. Items will either begin to clog bank spots or flood the auction house, driving down prices. Gold will become more readily available with nothing to take it out of the game rather than it moving from player to player. Be it one year, two years or five years down the road, if something doesn’t happen Vanilla will become a watered down mess.

I’m not advocating guild banks as the ultimate solution, but I am saying that at some point serious discussions will likely be needed over how to progress.

I just copied this over from the “If guild banks…” thread as it’s easier than retyping the whole thing. Replace that last Vanilla with Classic. I’m up past my bedtime and my brain is tired.

[Fesz-cenarius]

That was the point of my hashtag. WoW was constantly evolving and to be true to authentic versions of any particular moment of the timeline is to accept the fact that other parts are going to be changed. One of the purposes of TBC was to encourage people to move on from Vanilla. A truly authentic TBC server has to serve the same purpose. It’s a silly point to argue, but it demonstrates the risk of excessively rigid adherence to a concept.

The point is that Blizzard can offer TBC servers in addition to classic servers while leaving the classic servers as they are.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

That was the point of my hashtag. WoW was constantly evolving and to be true to authentic versions of any particular moment of the timeline is to accept the fact that other parts are going to be changed. One of the purposes of TBC was to encourage people to move on from Vanilla. A truly authentic TBC server has to serve the same purpose. It’s a silly point to argue, but it demonstrates the risk of excessively rigid adherence to a concept.

The point is that Blizzard can offer TBC servers in addition to classic servers while leaving the classic servers as they are.

Except classic servers don’t exist yet. This discussion is about whether guild banks should exist in classic servers.

[Fesz-cenarius]

That was the point of my hashtag. WoW was constantly evolving and to be true to authentic versions of any particular moment of the timeline is to accept the fact that other parts are going to be changed. One of the purposes of TBC was to encourage people to move on from Vanilla. A truly authentic TBC server has to serve the same purpose. It’s a silly point to argue, but it demonstrates the risk of excessively rigid adherence to a concept.

The point is that Blizzard can offer TBC servers in addition to classic servers while leaving the classic servers as they are.

Except classic servers don’t exist yet. This discussion is about whether guild banks should exist in classic servers.

Arguments have been given for and against guild banks. The only argument on either side that has not been “countered” is the fact that guild banks were never part of vanilla.