About 31 minutes in he starts talking about ripple effects from adding changes. Aka slippery slope.
That and going ahead and banning the the same five trolls asking for changes. Just get it over with so we won’t have all the ridiculous threads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhKkP8LryYM
yup you are right. 30 minutes and 50 seconds in he starts.
I actually want the no changers to properly debate against guild banks. Because I want blizzard to have educated information for and against them when they make their final verdict on if they are added or not.
However when the no changers are using slippery slope fallacy and “inventory management” (which was trivialized day one of vanilla to not matter on anything not soulbound when in town, which guild banks don’t allow soulbound items into it nor do they let you access them anywhere but town, the one place non soulbound items never had inventory management issues due to the mail system and bank alts) makes it hard to debate this topic.
They have brought up some issues that actually raise consern for the possible change. As an example being able to put something in the guild bank in stormwind and someone instantly withdraws it (no mail system delay) from darnasis (no in person trading). However it’s been pointed out that this issue could easily be rectified by only placing the guild bank in ONE major city for each faction.
The other issue they have tried to push that has some (very little) merit to it is development time and the delay it could cause, but it’s been pointed out that they already have all the coding, data, exc. To enable the system due to using the 7.3 client and just having to add the actual trigger to reach the user interface of guild banks. Which is as easy as adding one NPC into the world per faction at their chosen location. Which doesn’t take much time at all considering they can recycle existing NPC data and art, and existing client side interfaces from the 7.3 client. Doing this theoretically could be done within a few minutes to a few hours depending on how the base data of vanilla is set up. In other words, no more than a day of development time.
4 Likes
If that’s the only thing you have seen from pro changers on this topic, you may want to try actually reading what’s posted instead of inputting your own words into other people’s mouths to meet your agenda.
1 Like
The slippery slope fallacy you use in your favor? You know how you say its a fallacy and isn’t true? Well you say things like something major like sharding and loot trading got in so lets go ahead and add guild banks because it is already not an authentic experience.
1 Like
Yeah, Pandora’s Box = Slippery Slope. It’s reassuring knowing that Ion and the devs understand the danger.
2 Likes
Like I said before, if Blizz said they’re going to start Classic without GBs and then take a look at the landscape down the road, I’d be fine with that. If the raiders came back and said that the logistics of organizing and equipping 40 mans are excessively prohibitive then maybe they would need to be added. I know that it was done without GBs before, but times have changed. I also know that there are militants on both sides that won’t change their opinions no matter what happens.
I know that Mr. Brack has said that Blizzard is good no matter how many people play Classic, but I choose to remain dubious. As close to the original as orcishly possible is preferred, but not at the expense of long term viability. But to start out with all the changes in the hopes of being a huge hit out of the box seems a bit disingenuous given their stated goals.
The only thing pro changes say are about how they refute things with logic and how you cant beat them in the argument and that they want guild banks because its a minor change and since we already have sharding and loot trading we should just add more changes. Yeah. iv been reading. Padrepwn thinks hes ‘logical’ but he just ignores what you are saying and keeps typing his opinion while failing to realize he is ignorant.
Your taking what he said out or context, he was referring to making changes to the BASE code of 1.12, like say trying to make AV use a previous version. Not for adding things after the fact. If that was the case they would never have said they are adding things like loot trading, bnet integration, sharding (not fully confirmed or denied yet), exc.
Your taking what they said out of context to fit your agenda AGAIN.
I see your still not reading.
sure I am. Keep telling yourself that in argument so you can justify your wants as a valid opinion. Until you ask for something that was in Vanilla aka 1.1 - 1.12.1, you are a troll. Blizzard already said the only changes they will add are things that were between 2004 and 2006 Vanilla aka Pre TBC
Well except for all things post 1.12 they’re already adding and the things they are still considering adding.
2 Likes
Why do you think there is a huge backlash on sharding and loot trading? it wasn’t in Vanilla and shouldn’t be in Classic. Again someone is using sharding and loot trading to justify putting in changes that happened outside Vanilla.
4 Likes
Ziryus enters
Farrah lays down facts
Ziryus leaves
Farrah on a roll in destroying these pro change enthusiasts!
2 Likes
here is how I can tell your not reading.
I’ve said multiple times I want valid reasons not to add guild banks to be brought up, because honestly, I know I wont thing of every pro and con about guild banks because know one thinks of everything. however the cons and issues that the no change group have brought up are either severely flawed for reasons against or have very simple corrections to fix said issues. as I explained with the SW to Darnassis example if they put guild banks in its easy enough to mke only 1 trigger in the world that works for guild banks per faction, and its solved. meaning its a very easy to control veriable that can have the issue fixed with very minimal work.
I would like guild banks in classic, and so far there have been very little actual debating about why they would be bad for classic and more so fearmongering of how it supposedly breaks ‘core’ vanilla aspects. I feel bad for you that all you can see if ‘change bad’ to everything in front of you because you are very much acting like the NPC meme, because your not thinking, your just repeating what you heard before. “Change bad!” try thinking this topic through from the perspective of a business, a game designer, and then the perspective of MMORPG player.
I have personally argued against multiple possible changes, because I pointed out how they effect the game based on how we saw it effect the game when it was introduced into retail at the time of the introductions. trasmog destroyed the economy, leveling experience, gold farming habits, and player power to gear identity. Gold tokens altered the economy, the rate at which people gold farm to save real world $$$ (player behavior) the leveling experience, and more. I could go on. Guild banks don’t have negative effects on the economy, as it acts as a gold sink, and unlike gold tokens and trasmogs that gold doesn’t go back into the economy, nor does it change how people farm gold, nor does it change how much gold a low level player can make while leveling, nor does it make people change how they acted toward guildies or other players, exc.
it fixes multiple security, ToS violation, and other issues that the guild bank alt system had the potential to cause.
I’ve shot down plenty of ‘change’ requests, but I don’t see enough cons on guild banks to say they shouldn’t be considered for classic. that’s why I want a discussion, show me the cons I missed, because so far I’ve seen emotionally fueled nonsense and easily fixed issues.
you act like I’m say to “put guild banks in hands down idk what other thing put them in!!!”
im not saying that and that’s how I know your not actually reading what I and others posted. you read “guild banks could be good for classic” and what you see when you read that is “I want guild banks, lets put them in classic”
try READING without your BIAS for ONCE.
Virtually every single time I’ve heard people talking about the “slippery slope” on these forums, they’ve used it in a completely different manner. They’ve said that one change will lead to another change being made, or that it will somehow justify more changes. Not that one change will lead to a ripple effect of unintended consequences.
He never said that making one change would lead them to making other changes, which is what the vast majority of people on these forums claim the slippery slope is all about.
3 Likes
you just keep telling yourself that buddy, meanwhile I’m still waiting for an actual valid reason that guild bank shouldn’t be considered for classic.
Here’s a couple facts for you, blizzard is fact making changes past 1.12. They have also said they are open to making more changes provided they make sense in the context of classic and have never across the board ruled out change, only said no to specific things.
2 Likes
You want guild banks because it is a gold sink, you think every guild used a alt account as a guild bank. You want guild banks.
Yes guild banks are a gold sink, aka change in economy. Goal of Classic? Authentic Vanilla. REFUTED!
Some guilds had an alt account used as a guild bank. True but not every guild did this. Doesn’t need to be added because there are other ways of storing and helping guild members aka storing materials on one of your own alts and trading guild members materials they need. This makes the player whom is receiving the items remember your character name and the experience they had with you. Very positive for the community. Vanilla thrived without guild banks. Classic will too.
You said NPC meme. OK, now I know you are less than 30 and most likely 18 because no adult iv met talks about memes or mentions memes in any way other than how they are stupid.
You aren’t 100% pro change and are no change on some subjects. GOOD! No changes is what Classic is all about.
I read everything you typed.
Guild Banks should not be in Classic.
3 Likes