The arguments I’ve heard against dual spec:
-
The gold sink argument. Some argue this would remove an important gold sink and lead to more inflation. I personally don’t think many are currently spending that much actual gold respecializing their talents. If it is an actual problem, perhaps we could increase other gold sinks like increasing the auction house cut by 2% or something.
-
Balance arguments. Some argue that dual spec would ruin tbc balance. This might (further) trivialize raids or dungeons if everyone can choose the optimal spec for each encounter. It might create a more annoying min-max culture in raids. It might ruin the uniqueness of hybrid specs like feral druids. I think these are compelling arguments. To alleviate them, as some have mentioned, we could lock the spec you enter a dungeon/raid/battleground/etc with so that you can’t change in the middle. In my opinion this completely answers balance concerns.
-
The purity argument. It wasn’t there before so it shouldn’t be now. I suppose this is more a matter of perspective on whether anything at all should change in tbc. But I think most recognize real problems with the current tbc that we all enjoy. Two pertinent ones that dual spec might help with are: a shortage of willing tanks, and raid logging players. It’s hard to say exactly to what extent it will alleviate these problems but it’s undeniable that it will open tanking and healing options to more players and remove one barrier between them and these roles. If I had dual spec I would personally pick up tanking. It will also remove one barrier between a raiding player and other content in the game like pvp. These are good benefits to the game we all enjoy and want to succeed.
-
The slippery slope argument. If we allow dual specs, what’s next? [Insert most unpopular feature of retail here]?!?! This is closely related to the purity argument. Proponents of this view seem to think that caving to dual specs requires us to agree to any change whatsoever. They seem to think that the exact same arguments for dual spec could be equally applied to other things like a looking for group tool, so agreeing to dual spec is equivalent to agreeing to that change. But this isn’t the case. A LFG tool or other retail features change the game in different ways than dual-specs would. So we can argue the merits and drawbacks of each change individually. We can accept one change and reject another. It isn’t all or nothing.
-
The meaningful choices argument. Choices have consequences, so picking a specialization should too. I think this might be compelling if the current game design didn’t allow any respecialization whatsoever. But it does. The current system acts as more of a hindrance and deterrent than a meaningful choice in my opinion. A close relative of this argument is its inverse, that 50g isn’t hard to get so respecializing isn’t that hard. But I think most agree that it actually is an annoyance to pay and visit trainers just to switch which content of the game you are playing. In my opinion it is an unnecessary hindrance, the removal of which would lead to a more healthy and fun game.
Thanks for reading. Did I miss any?
Thank for building a WALL
Trump would be so proud
2 Likes
I think a much simpler solution which wouldn’t require a complete revamp or implementation of a new system would be to reduce the respect cost to maybe 10g max
2 Likes
Maybe that no change is necessary where no problem really exists?
Dual Spec will not resolve the Tank shortage, it never has, never will… at least you won’t get any good tanks out of it.
Raid logging to me isn’t a big problem, at least as long as those people are already at a point where they can’t get anything from dungeoning any more.
As Huff said, if you really need to change anything, just lower the respec costs. Easiest fix ever without having all the negative consequences coming with dual spec.
To me, the biggest problem is people that come from retail into a game that is not retail (thank god) and trying to remutailate it.
7 Likes
Thanks for your reply!
I’m confused because you say there are no problems but then say there is an actual tank shortage, and that raid logging isn’t a (big) problem. So your argument actually seems to be that dual specs will not meaningfully help the tank shortage and that raid logging isn’t a big problem, not that there actually don’t exist problems.
If a tank shortage exists, removing barriers to tanking seems like one obvious fix. There are other barriers to tanking, like that it just isn’t as fun for most. I get that. Like I said I personally would pick up tanking with dual spec and I know many other players who would as well. But other than my personal experiences it’s hard to say exactly how much it would help.
Honestly, changing the cost to 10g would be a solution I would like too. I think any change reducing the barrier is a good one.
Did you have in mind other negative impacts to dual speccing than the ones I mention abkve?
There’s a very simple compromise. If you want to play Retail, play Retail. If you want to play TBC, play TBC.
Choices are great.
3 Likes
This isn’t the Wotlk waiting room, people who actually like and accept TBC for what it is don’t want their second shot at TBC warped to fit the needs of people who will abandon it the moment Wrath comes out. (Which it will, its easy money)
I had my fill of people being told they needed to farm a second gear set for tanking or DPS showing up in the heroic queue as tanks in their DPS gear or Stamina stacked sets to try and tank only to get pulverized. We want people who truly enjoy tanking and desire to dedicate to it.
2 Likes
Thanks for responding.
But the thing is, I don’t want to play retail. I tried retail for the first time a week or two ago and very much disliked many features of it. I love tbc. But I think dual specializations could improve tbc. I think it’s a fallacy to say dual specs plus tbc = retail. See my slippery slope argument.
stop trying to justify changes go play Retail thanks
2 Likes
If changes are well justified then perhaps implementing them makes sense.
go play Retail, leave classic/tbc alone. 
Nah thats not how the world works. Half of the reasons you brought up with I disgree with. So what may be well justified for you is not for me. Not everyone plays the game for the same reason and agrees on everything.
In that sense we would have very different “well justified arguments”. LFG saves time for me as a player I dont want to walk to dungeons. Just stop trying to change the game these arguments may APPEAR well justified to you but everyone has a different opinion.
2 Likes
nope.
every change can be justified by this or that reasoning. but at the end of the day, EVERY CHANGE leads to retail.
2 Likes
The tank shortage isn’t a problem. It is just the classic TBC experience. Even back then, there weren’t enough tanks around.
The solution: roll a tank (that’s what I did)! Or find a guild that will run dungeons with you.
And as for tanking, the biggest problem why few tanks like pugging is that many pugs are very substandard. They think they know better, don’t watch threat and then complain when they kiss the ground, don’t do decent DPS for their level because they don’t know how to play their class, etc…
As for raid logging, it isn’t really a problem because those people will have alts that are at a gear level more suitable to dungeons anyways. It is only a problem if people start raid logging despite not having their pre-raid equipment complete. (so sometimes a problem, but not a big one)
Why change things when we got promised a classic experience? If I wanted those things, I could play retail (which I don’t because those changes were what made me quit originally)
2 Likes
Not everything in retail is bad such as dual spec.
Adding good things is good. Adding bad things (such as boosts, LFR, etc) is bad.
1 Like
I would like to reiterate that accepting one change does not require us to agree to all changes! If we implement dual specs for good reasons we can still reject other changes for good reasons!
But please, if you have a reason to justify rejecting dual specializations other than the slippery slope argument, I’d love to discuss and think about them! I don’t want tbc ruined any more than you do.
I feel like having a dual spec could be really great later on, but I think it’s too early right now to implement it. Although personally I do really like dual speccing 
1 Like
The other good argument against dual spec is that with the dailies in the next phase, getting the 100g per week to respec is just half an hour’s easy work.
Changes can be made, but only as long as they don’t affect gameplay compared to the original release.
For example, dynamically balancing out herb spawns to correlate to the larger server populations today, fixing arena points to a comparable amount as you got back in the days, maybe even a graphics revamp with high polygon models like retails has…
Very few people will complain about that. But adding “features” that a detested by many older players is not the way to go.
If you want to play TBC even if it’s in some bastardized form, then it’s not fine to have dual spec.
If you don’t want to play TBC at all, then it’s fine to have dual spec.
That’s what it boils down to. How much do people care about TBC as in the game itself? A lot don’t apparently.
Edit: I mean, i REALLY want the orb of deception to last for an hour and have a cooldown of 5 minutes. It has no real game impact. But at the end of the day, I also want TBC Classic as I did Vanilla Classic to keep some of it’s dignity.
EVERY. SINGLE. CHANGE. leads to retail
1 Like