biggest reason against gbanks?

Classic Discussion
Prev 1 3 4 5 16 Next
I actually miss having to make decisions about what I kept and what I ditched.
05/15/2018 05:01 AMPosted by Calciumplus
I actually miss having to make decisions about what I kept and what I ditched.
it was never a decision...

Bank alt or Mail storage was the only decision to make...

Edit: removed the double post part.
05/14/2018 10:12 PMPosted by Dealloc
05/14/2018 08:09 PMPosted by Ziryus
...

So you don't have another reason?


Wasn't vanilla. Don't need another reason. Classic is vanilla. Vanilla is classic.


Right so like I said, just nostalgia.
05/15/2018 05:03 AMPosted by Redheadchild
05/15/2018 04:33 AMPosted by Tuathaa
...

There was never a game called vanilla try again.

Blizzard has also stated they are one and the same so stop spreading that hyperbole
show me where they said classic=vanilla?

They have said classic will offer the vanilla experience, but they never said it would be a 1:1 port of vanilla.

They have said vanilla means vanilla, but that isn't saying classic=vanilla.

Your looking at their public relations play on words to not really say anything concrete and seeing what you want to see.,
05/15/2018 05:01 AMPosted by Calciumplus
I actually miss having to make decisions about what I kept and what I ditched.
it was never a decision...

Bank alt or Mail storage was the only decision to make...


On my phone so i cant really search but Ion did indeed said that. The transcript was posted on reddit, the eu forum and the link was posted here.
As active as you are i am willing to bet you know this and have read it already. Just a case of denial
Again there was never a game called wow: vanilla. When tbc launched blizzard changed the name to classic. The only time blizzard uses the term vanilla is when the they are addressing the pserver or gaming community since vanilla is a name given to classic by the gaming community.

At no time have i ever said it will be a 1:1 port that is just some weird fallacy that the pro change community throws out their to start arguments.

By the way i am 100% for guild banks and calendars.

I hate to tell but classic isnt a new game and it isnt going to be open to what ever whackadoodle changes you want.
Just a friendly reminder that the only downside of guild banks is that you can't rob your guild and get away with it
05/15/2018 07:21 AMPosted by Fientalton
Just a friendly reminder that the only downside of guild banks is that you can't rob your guild and get away with it


How is this even an argument?

World without guildbanks: Officer or GM gets mad at the guild and takes off with whatever materials he has in his possession. (usually the mats are spread out)

World with guildbanks: Officer or GM gets mad and kicks everyone from the guild and loots the entire guild bank.
05/14/2018 12:42 PMPosted by Stempikk
Gbanks where not vanilla and it just made it so everyone had a gbank and a personal guild.

The only argument im reading is "people will steal if we don't have gbanks." which is by far the stupidest thing i have ever heard. People stealing from Gbanks in wotlk happened so much blizzard had to change rules for it and started doing gbank restorations because it got so bad. Gbanks are trash. You are trash if you say otherwise.

The only reason they want them in convenience. It's very convenient. Vanilla isn't about convenience. It's about community, leveling, raiding, pvp, and true MMORPG experience.

I would sacrifice my first born out of sheer hatred of these idiots pushing for gbanks if it would allow me to backhand them each irl.


This is the dumbest justification for not having guild banks. All this says is I want to play this way so everyone has to play this way. There were far more hard core MMOs before WoW and they had all kinds of storage systems. So everything you said about guild banks and MMOs is complete nonsense.
Blizzard added GB's not because they don't know how to make games, they added these because it was a much needed feature.

Only reason I hear people think it shouldn't be is "because it wasn't there, and if there are scams, scams are ok because scams were in vanilla". It's nostalgia clouding peoples minds a bit too much. A dream everyone wakes up pretty quickly from once reality kicks in.
05/15/2018 12:15 AMPosted by Redheadchild
05/14/2018 08:51 PMPosted by Malfetus
Biggest reason if you let one thing through, who knows what will follow. That's a damn good reason
so more fearmongering with the fallacy that is the Slippery slope arguement? Got it.


Another person citing the "slippery slope fallacy" who doesn't understand what the slippery slope fallacy is.

The slippery slope fallacy only applies when it is actually a logical fallacy and not when it isn't.

If someone suggests that one thing might lead to another it doesn't mean the slippery slope fallacy applies. Certain changes may be the cause of implemeting other changes. If a dev says, "Well we made this change so I think we have to make this change as a result." then it's not a logical fallacy now is it?
05/15/2018 05:07 AMPosted by Ziryus
05/14/2018 10:12 PMPosted by Dealloc
...

Wasn't vanilla. Don't need another reason. Classic is vanilla. Vanilla is classic.


Right so like I said, just nostalgia.


Not nostalgia at all for me. I'll play classic whether or not they have guild banks. It's not going to make or break it for me.

But if a feature wasn't in vanilla it simply is not vanilla. It doesn't belong there. It wasn't a bug. It was how the game was made. People asked for vanilla. They should get vanilla.

And this whole thread is looking at it from the wrong perspective anyways. Those against guild banks shouldn't have to say why. Those in favor of guild banks are the ones who need to be telling us why they need to be in vanilla. They are the ones who need to be defending their position.
People where more social without guild banks, they would ask each other for potions or enchanting rods and often tip each other for the service. That's what I want back, an MMO that actually forced people to interact.
05/15/2018 09:36 AMPosted by Mightylink
People where more social without guild banks, they would ask each other for potions or enchanting rods and often tip each other for the service. That's what I want back, an MMO that actually forced people to interact.


This is actually the best reason not to change a thing. The social interaction is a very strong and positive component of the original Classic and should be again.

If we go messing about with things that were even a very small social element of the game then we run the risk of breaking the game even if the objective is "for the greater good"

If there is an item or items that I don't want to run the risk of loosing out on, then I will simply keep them in my own personal bank alt like every one did.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Its not a fallacy, its real and has an abundance of evidence to support it. Just because you can't argue past it, doesn't make it a fallacy.
it's been argued past multiple times. The slippery slope is a fallacy.

The problem with slippery slope reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Wow "retail" is not a good example of why the slippery slope "is real" because of a few reasons.

1. When vanilla was released it was in an ever state of change, blizzard has stated they don't want to manage 2 MMOs meaning classic will likely see release, time gated content release, and bug fixes with no new content other than what blizzard decides to timegate (raids) if anything is timegated at all.

2. Expansion changes were made constantly to retail over the years in an attempt to "keep the game fresh" classic is not mentioned to see any expansions and will likely not see anything that changes it's game philosophy design like the expansion changes do.

3. Classic is not retail, it is an entirely different game and is being made with entirely different reasons than what even vanilla wow was made for.

4. It is mentioned to offer the vanilla experience, which means the game design philosophy will be in line with what vanilla wow was, which means it won't have flying, auto group+to to content+free loot, exc. It can see changes that are in line with the vanilla philosophy if blizzard decides to do so, but it likely won't see anything changed after classic launches.

So yes, the slippery slope arguement you use to say nothing should be changed is a fallacy in two ways. One as mentioned above, and two because there is already changes, you can't just say "oh these changes don't count!" (Bnet integration as an example) If the slippery slope was real, we would already be on it and classic would be doomed, but it's not real and your just using it as fearmongering at this point.


And everytime you argued this with me you have lost, over and over. The slippery slope is not a fallacy, it is a reasonable logical arguement with its roots in precedence setting which is the basis for much decision making across the world. By allowing one non vanilla change you are inherently increasing the likelihood of another non vanilla change. This is simply the truth, and evidence liters the real world of this in action, and retail is an example as well.

You can dislike the argument all you want, you can call it a fallacy to try and avoid it but the reality remains that it is not a fallacy just because you do not have the ability to argue past it, or because some book told you so. Think for yourself.

Lastly, I do love when people say vanilla won't fall to the slippery slope because "its not retail"...so the automatically makes it immune or something? LOL
People are making a mountain out of a molehill over this issue. I don't remember any of us wanting gbanks back in vanilla, and in all my time on private servers, no one has mentioned wanting guild banks at all. It's fine the way it is. Stop making a big issue out of something you have no experience in.
05/14/2018 07:51 PMPosted by Tuathaa
05/14/2018 06:43 PMPosted by Sarevök
...

Sounds like you should stick to retail.

No changes.


Because it wasn't in classic really is the only valid argument against gbanks.


That's the only reason we need.

No changes.
05/15/2018 10:12 AMPosted by Sarevök
05/14/2018 07:51 PMPosted by Tuathaa
...

Because it wasn't in classic really is the only valid argument against gbanks.


That's the only reason we need.

No changes.


This is why we need changes, to make this guy upset.
05/15/2018 10:18 AMPosted by Grogzo265432
05/15/2018 10:12 AMPosted by Sarevök
...

That's the only reason we need.

No changes.


This is why we need changes, to make this guy upset.


That is pro changers summed up. Change the game, so people get angry. Because reasons.
Pretty simple. They weren't in Vanilla and they're not necessary. A big part of Vanilla was players taking matters into their own hands. If you're in a guild, have a website. Keep meticulous track of who has what, who provides what, who mails this item to that person, etc.
The only good reason to not include Guild banks is if they create additional development time. They can be modified to fit the Vanilla design philosophy.

There's no other good reason to not include them, fact.
05/15/2018 10:22 AMPosted by Mogar
Pretty simple. They weren't in Vanilla and they're not necessary. A big part of Vanilla was players taking matters into their own hands. If you're in a guild, have a website. Keep meticulous track of who has what, who provides what, who mails this item to that person, etc.


Nah an ingame tool is much better and less immersion breaking.

And of course guild banks have always been 100% optional so if you love not using them so much simply don't use them.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum