Not playing your game.
We spoke, you said “we’ll see”, and that was it.
If you can’t remember that’s not my problem. Stop trolling.
I don’t think you understand the point. If bank alts are necessary, the question is if bank alts are a secure, steady option that can’t be abused. If they can be abused, bank alts are not a reliable option, and that is open to change.
It is not for the experience, it is for security. It is a change for the same reason battlenet and the modern backend is a change that wasn’t present in Vanilla, but is going to be in Classic.
1 Like
What is insecure about a Guild Bank Alt (GBA)?
It’s accurate. I don’t want to give any credence to the nonsensical statement “you think you do, but you don’t” by accepting any changes.
Unfortunately not. I would’ve much preferred that, honestly.
While I totally understand the decision to use the modern engine to recreate the game, it must be noted the number of issues that arise because of that.
There’s a lot of leeway that has to be given, and it diminishes the #nochanges argument when we have to concede the notion that it’s not really the same game anymore, and lots of things have changed because of the different engine.
Dislike. I want Classic, old, terrible graphics included.
It’s a good change, but I’ve mentioned before that I’m still opposed to good changes solely because I don’t trust Blizzard anymore to make the right decisions when it comes to which changes are good and which are bad.
If I trusted Blizzard with that, I wouldn’t be wanting Classic; I’d be playing BfA.
I’d rather leave it to the addons.
Dislike. To an extent, the API we have now is capable of a lot of things, but a lot of great addons over the years were killed by changes made to the API.
It’d be a lot closer to the vanilla experience if the limits of mods were the same, as well.
I can understand the argument for this change, but again, it’s one I don’t really approve of even if it’s a good change. It opens the door to Blizzard making other changes, not all of which will be good.
gag
I do, as well, because they conflate changes to the game with changes to hardware used to play the game.
If Blizzard had continued to host the game in its 1.12 state with absolutely no changes up until this point, we’d still be playing it on our new computers, so that’s not really a valid argument against no changes.
Agreed, and making absolutely no changes is critical towards providing that experience, and more importantly, ensuring Blizzard doesn’t take creatively liberties in deciding what qualifies as “that authentic experience.”
Yet they’ve said multiple times they’ll be making changes. You see now why I don’t really trust Blizzard.
Thankfully, the majority of the community said Classic should be Classic, and people like you who have throwing a fit ever since.
Funny coming from someone who has consistently gone out of their way to make everyone aware they were ignoring vast portions of others’ posts.
But guild banks can’t be abused? What is the point in adding guild banks if the problem you have with bank alts is not solved by adding guild banks?
The experience is the entire point of Classic, and the entire point of saying #nochanges.
Neither of which I approve of, but are things I unfortunately have to concede to Blizzard if I have any hope of getting Classic at all.
Guild banks, however, aren’t necessary changes like battle.net and the modern backend are.
Nothing, as long as you choose wisely who gets access. Incidentally, the exact same thing can be said for guild banks, so I wonder what the hell the point is.
2 Likes
Anything and everything related to a lack of transparency and acccurate record-keeping, for one.
Abuse with a guild bank alt that skims or gets account shared in order to manage that inventory. As so many like to tell me here, because it was done in the past doesn’t mean it’s okay today.
Classic is to re-experience Vanilla as best as they can, but security overrides the experience. Again, there’s already changes when it comes to the basic experience in order to protect the players.
What part of transparency and the ability to identify and address issues is not addressed by having the guild bank alt treated as the guild bank? Logs and a history allow more player agency as part of a guild or a community, instead of just more of the old “he said/she said”.
I’m sorry, but the added benefit, and the extra security doesn’t infringe on the experience this way.
1 Like
This is about the only decent argument made for guild banks so far, but I still hold firm in my opinion that no changes, no matter how good they would be for the game, should be made.
Account sharing is against the rules, so I don’t really think this is something that’s insecure about a guild bank alt, but rather something insecure about account sharing.
And guild banks offer no such security.
Which I have repeatedly stated I don’t approve of.
Also, depending on which changes you mean, I’d actually argue they could serve to harm the players more than to protect them. The automated punishment system and the right click -> report function, for example.
???
You said that bank alts could be abused. If your issue is abuse, I’d like to remind you that it is possible abuse the guild bank, as well.
I’d wager cases of outright bank cleaning is far more common than skimming supplies here and there over time.
You can manage your own logs and history, depending on how you run things. You don’t want more player agency, you want less. You want the game to handle things for them instead of letting the community and individual guilds handle things the way they want to.
The experience is “this is what it was like in vanilla.” There were no guild banks in vanilla, so adding them to Classic would most certainly infringe on the experience.
And like any other change, good or bad, it opens the door to further changes, further ruining the experience.
And that doesn’t mean there aren’t basic protections now available that weren’t in Vanilla that are going to be in Classic.
It also doesn’t mean you can’t turn your bank alt into a functioning guild bank for the same reason.
You don’t go to a American Revolutionary War museum and expect them to have the security like it was in 1776.
Don’t try and be condescending. You can do anything you like. You don’t have to use a guild bank. You can do things the old way with a bank alt. You can use EPGP, you can use DKP. You can use Master Loot. You can auction drops in a raid for gold.
For all the talk of people have of “server blacklists” - the resistance against a solution that allows for added transparency without affecting the Vanilla experience is contrary to the effectiveness of that whole concept. All people had then was your word, forgetting that without PROOF, you could just as easily be dismissed as trying to start drama.
What you can’t do anymore is waste Blizzard’s time. Again, right click report, the modern back end. What Blizzard doesn’t want to make their support team is go back through your guildmate’s history and try and determine what they did and did not do with your guild’s bank alt. If you’ve got proof, they’ll act on it. If you don’t, “they’ll look into it.”
There you have it, a solution that offers proof in case of misdeeds, and evidence towards which you can take action, instead of guessing if the guy in charge of your guild bank decided to go rogue and mail all of your mats, while still allowing someone to create their bank alt.
Accountability is an added layer of security, as much as the authenticator. You know you can make it so that anyone who accesses a guild bank has an authenticator, right? You can’t make someone who runs your bank alt use an authenticator.
Remember when authenticators were available in Vanilla? Neither do I. Yet here they are.
Remember when Guild banks were in Vanilla? Neither do I. We had guild bank alts. And there’s nothing saying that we can’t turn that guild bank alt into a guild bank.
1 Like
If I can remember getting by fine without it, which I can, I tend to concur.
What do guild banks do for Classic?
No seriously what do they do FOR Classic?
They’re a convenience, a QoL change and not a necessarily small one either. So what are the non-QoL arguments for it? “Security” keeps getting tossed up. Yeah no guild banks are arguably LESS secure than relying on guild bank alts. So what do they do for Classic other than being a way around having to do things we did in Classic?
Because seriously they make a lot of small ripple changes throughout the entire game just having them.
2 Likes
You realize that that is the same argument for flight right? Path of Least Resistance Gaming fallacy.
This point relies on an assumption that guild banks cause no alterations of the “Vanilla experience” if you will. That is a false assumption. Guild banks will indeed cause multiple changes to the overall experience of Classic in it’s attempt to be an authentic “Vanilla experience”.
So? Blizzard doesn’t want to waste money on moderators period. If they could reduce money spent on moderation of activity in the game without compromising the game then they would.
In-game action history is not all that hard to deal with. Just because we don’t have access to the history of how items went from point A to point B does not mean that Blizzard’s employees don’t. I’ve had items backtracked through an expansion or two. Seeing how they attained and item and what happened to it is not hard.
I am unsure of where you are getting at with this. Proper guild management is just fine where it is. Also this argument hurts your side as well. Do you know why they added the authenticator requirement option? Because learning who the officers of a guild were that had access to the guild bank was extremely easy and thus hacking said accounts to wipe clean all of the valuables of said guild banks was an issue. An issue I should note that was created by the introduction of guild banks.
Affects gameplay in zero ways other than extreme purists wanting the full original login experience.
Really?
2 Likes
I seen someone else’s post about it costing a decent amount of coin. 1000+G or so to buy a gbank tab. I think something like this could work.
It would allow the Vanilla guilds who don’t want Gbanks, an option to not buy into it. Which will give the #nochanges exactly what they want. Their own management system the way they want, and no need to pay gold either. Win-win
And… that’s it.
The guilds that want it. Can pay to have it, instead of managing it the Vanilla way
Everyone gets what they want
1 Like
I firmly disagree.
This further incentivizes gold making and also creates a guild stigma. “What this raiding guild never even got the gold to have a guild bank?” will be a thing. Just like how many people didn’t want to deal with guilds that were not lvl 25.
But they have the option to go for it… it is still an option.
Path of Least Resistance Gaming fallacy. Give them the option to make things easier and faster to do and players will be incentivized to do it.
2 Likes
Not if it’s popular to not pay for a gbank.
Then make it cost. It’s not the ‘path of least resistance’ when you have to pay a huge sum for it.
Flight was not popular on my home server of Emerald Dream during the great flight debacle. We all were anti-flight. Pro flight people on overall wow won. Flying was an advantage, one most of our wpvp server community did not like but one nonetheless. Nearly everyone attained flight on our server.
The case(the flight one) is slightly more extreme but understanding how Path of Least Resistance works is a big deal.
A rich player could make a leveling guild and that leveling guild for example would be an extreme advantage to others when they can advertise the ability to draw items such as potions and low cost mats that other members can easily donate from said guild bank. That leveling guild would be MUCH more popular than others in a heart beat.
Could the same be done otherwise? Yes but it would take a substantial amount of work and effort to replicate such a system allowing other lower level characters to withdraw say 1 item once a day.
This is something guild banks do. They create a sharing system that involves little to no communication whatsoever.
If the guild has 20 players then each player can donate 50G to get the guild bank. This also creates another gold sink.
1 Like
Gold sinks are a good thing. Other wise years down the road you end up with a lot of extra cash floating around.
Make it cost! 1000G is clearly too small. 10,000 G would fix it, while making it rare enough to not have stigma attached.
Just to further emphasize on this.
If I play a lower level char trying to work on professions in a vanilla-like server and say need a gold bar. I then ask my guild if anyone has a spare gold bar. If I am lucky someone who is on with a spare one at that moment will say “Yes I do” and then we can arrange a way for me to meet up with them to trade with them as to avoid the hour long wait in mail box.
This can then lead to me thanking them and offering to do a favor in return. It can also lead us to befriending each other more. What if it turns out that they need something I have down the road, I specifically will feel incentivized to make sure to help them then.
In the guild bank scenario I just go to the guild bank, check for a gold bar if anyone has donated such an item, if there I get it. No communication, no community feel.
The donation system will feel mechanical. “Oh someone put one in! Sweet!” Or “None in there, dang.”
Now sure, I could then ask in guild chat if there was no item in the bank, and then have the same experience as before, but that’s only if there was no such item in the bank.
3 Likes
Wrong, right from the beginning. Flight paths is a quality of life feature. The functionality of a guild bank is a security feature to address the potential of abuse. How does flight paths affect the security of players or their experience?
This is precisely what I mean. Much of what is left of Blizzard’s support staff is going to be the same between Retail and Classic, so they are going to do whatever it is that they have time to do. Let’s not forget that a lot of the Customer Service staff has been let go.
And if they don’t have time to investigate, or they don’t have enough evidence, they will just move on.
The question is whether they’re going to do anything, should the worst happen. This is why they have so much automation now. Lost an item? There’s automatic functionality for that.
There’s no automatic functions for losing a character that isn’t yours, or having someone drop off the face of the earth, or having someone make off with everything in the guild bank alt.
As for your list of changes? You ignored the suggestion that you turn the guild bank alt into the guild bank, and nullifies all of your points. You still use an alt to serve as the guild bank, but it specifically has added functionality that allows it greater transparency. Your list of changes is predisposed that you use the current retail guild bank system.
This is a valid point. Community feel.
Just make it cost so much it’s out of reach of lowbie guilds.
I’d have to think on that. It seems like a fair point.
My issue is this.
If it is too cheap, every guild is going to need one to be considered a guild worth joining.
If it is too pricey, then the very rare few guilds will have a huge leg up in advertising and draw more people in.
The guilds with that much gold probably already have a system in place and/or their rep is so high that everyone on the server knows of them already. Just my opinion.
I think with a super high price, it won’t be affordable for quite a looong time.