Depends on which version of DK. If it’s the early-Wrath version, then DK will quite easily top the DPS charts as Blood and tank super well as Frost. If it’s the later-Wrath version, then DK will be okay at everything and at least help alleviate the tank drought, like you said.
If DK were ever added to TBC+ (because, let’s face it, that’s the game now) then I’d prefer for people to have to start at level 1. We were already given one boost per account, so let’s just keep it at that.
Yes, and that seems to be the heart of the change that it brings.
Well sure. Neither do I, but I also wouldn’t use the term “mere” to describe change that requires development work to software used daily by millions of people.
But to note, the exact same arguments apply to any change that one chooses to champion. There does not appear (to me) to be any particularly noticeable difference in the argument of “I want [insert change here], and there is no good argument against it.”
We can’t get death knights because they do not even exist yet. The scourge invasion hasn’t even happened, duh. 
I think it’s unlikely that we’ll get the early-expansion version of any class. If WoW Classic and TBC Classic can reasonably be used as reference points, it seems we will get the late-expansion versions.
Which, in my opinion, is quite unfortunate. The biggest reason I was looking forward to WotLK classic was to explore early DK builds, when deep into any of the trees could still be viable for tanking.
It’s actually kind of strange to have static classes for entire expansions. But, it’s what we have.
Yeah, you’re probably right. We’ll likely get the luke-warm lesser DK of later Wrath. Regardless, I’ma still play 2H Frost. 
Hard disagree.
There’s a big difference in merely asserting that there are no good arguments against something and proving/demonstrating it as such. That’s why I called this thread a strawman, because the OP did a poor job of mimicking what has happened in the Dual Spec threads in order to mock the whole concept.
The “best” argument against Dual Spec is #nochanges. It wasn’t in TBC, so it shouldn’t be in TBCC because it is out of its proper time/place. This is fine, but this argument is substantially weakened by the fact that in both Classic and in TBCC we got out-of-place changes to the game in the name of smoothing/bettering/improving overall player experience.
The other arguments against Dual Spec have been more or less nonsensical or incredibly weak:
On the flip side you have Blizzard’s own arguments shift from “speccing is a strategic choice” to “spec restrictions are just a hindrance” in the span of less than a year going from TBC to Wrath. GC spoke at length about this and all of the problems he and the rest of the Dev team saw with player behavior and why Dual Spec would be a solution to it. Those problems exist now, just as they did then. Rather than take the time to go to Moonglade, respec, redo bars, reselect talents, and prep for a new role as a Druid heads to go do BGs or Arenas… the Druid just… doesn’t and neither respecs nor does the BG or Arena. The same is true of a DPS Warrior or a Tank Warrior swapping around, etc. Some people are already in the habit of doing so, no big deal, they don’t care what the hurdles are, they just clear them and go, but most players (according to Blizzard) don’t do that.
All of that being said, if Dual Spec is added or not added in TBCC, it is no skin off my back. But, I see nothing holding back Blizzard from adding it in TBCC given the nearly negligible negative impact and exceptionally high positive impact.
Certainly.
Possibly. But it’s also possible that you are just posting in this perfectly reasonable thread of someone asking for a perfectly reasonable change, in an attempt to further your own agenda.
I mean, the best argument against any change is #NoChanges.
This doesn’t weaken the argument. It just says that there have been some changes. That doesn’t mean there should have been changes. Regardless, it does nothing to affect the strength of the argument.
Really? I don’t think so. But, you’re missing some:
Yes, things changed over time. The exact same argument can be made for any change. We are right back to the post that yours is supposed to be answering.
It’s odd that you’ve started your reply to this with:
And then talk about something different. What exactly do you disagree with about this statement?
What does “exceptionally high positive impact” actually mean here? Would it increase subscriptions?
While, as you said, it’s no skin off my back either way either, I somewhat doubt that adding dual spec would have much of an impact on subscriptions.
Shut up Flanders
While we are at it, give me Tauren Paladins, so I don’t have to be an Elf.
giggle
I like it OP.
This is incorrect. If #nochanges still existed as a Blizzard upheld mantra, then the argument has merit. However, because changes have gone through, the question is no longer if changes are ever allowed (they clearly are), but rather what changes ought to come about.
#nochanges is a dead-end.
Incorrect. Not all changes to the game came as responses to the same thing, for the same reasons, for the same progression, etc. A lot of changes to the game couldn’t even make sense right now in TBCC because the problem they’re addressing only works in light of systemic alterations that aren’t in play yet. MoP-Style Talents don’t make sense to add now when we have TBC through Cata talents to go through, and doing so would dramatically alter the core balancing of the game. The entirety of the Garrison feature came in response to favorable player reviews to the MoP Farm. Etc.
Unlike many changes and updates, we actually have progressive and detailed explanations for Dual Spec, specifically because Blizzard had a rather fixed view of it during Vanilla/TBC.
It is an absurd reduction of the two arguments. Nuance and details matter, and Dual Spec’s nuance separates it greatly from adding WotLK Death Knights.
Players will benefit, no more, no less. I don’t know how it would impact subscriptions, but the positive impact would be felt by anyone wanting to play. The lack of negative impact includes the fact that no rebalancing of PvE or PvP has to occur in the game, nor are entire areas, quests, gear, etc, needed to be added either. Those are negatives to the game because Dev time has to be spent doing something the Devs have been rather explicit about not doing: rebalancing the game.
That’s why we don’t get harder versions of bosses than existed in TBC, despite a semi-vocal minority of players demanding it to match the savvy level of your average TBCC player.
“Practically has zero downsides”
Did you not play wrath? DK’s were extremely broken throughout the entirety of the expansion. Its the one thing i hated most about WOTLK. Dk’s should have never existed and shouldn’t exist now.
The tank drought would easily be fixed with dual spec. I know a ton of paladins that would love to have prot as a secondary spec.
Could also be fixed by increasing threat modifiers on thunderclap and swipe. A lot of warriors won’t tank dungeons because they can’t hold any type of AoE threat, same with bears.
Was never the same after the WoD prepatch hit, I loved MoP on my WW… and then I found it distasteful and disgustingly slow in WoD.
Yeah they destroyed the fun of WW monk, I mean… they could have nerfed RFK and FoF damage because that was comically OP but… the mechanics of it was just… so amazing.
I hadn’t thought of it as such, but sure. Considering that Holly mentioned #SomeChanges for TBC Classic, there’s the idea that there will be changes.
#NoChanges, however is (in my opinion) the idea that there are no changes that we can universally agree upon being better, and the best course of action is to not implement any changes at all.
And we already know where Classic progresses to, i.e. Retail. Fast-tracking that is obviously desirable to some.
Some do yes. And some players already just use the respec facility in game if/when they want to respec. This doesn’t mean that dual spec won’t change the frequency of this, nor does it invalidate the point that Dual Spec changes how players play and gear.
Of course it does. I mean, absolutely it does. Being able to switch specs while raiding necessarily changes the meta… obviously.
I mean, I’ve explained it several times (quite probably to you already — it seems we continue the same conversation; though it’s possible it wasn’t with you).
For classes that aren’t required to maintain multiple specs (particularly those whose role remains consistent across specs), they have a spec for raiding, and an essentially free spec once dual spec is implemented.
For those on any raiding teams semi-hardcore and above, and particularly those classes who can perform multiple roles, they will be required to maintain 2 raid specs (and the gear to support them). This may only be a difference of maintaining a second spec for raids, as they may already be required to maintain multiple gear sets (e.g. Prot Paladins being required to maintain a healing set for raids).
The issue here is that for those classes, such as mages, who might only be required to keep a single raid spec, they now don’t have to worry about respecc’ing for PVP, since they can just use their dual spec. It’s not a fair change across all classes.
This is nonsensical, imo. Define the problems that dual spec solves. Then let’s consider possible solutions.
Saying skipping ahead by a single expansion is laughable. You’ve literally hijacked this thread about death knights to further your own agenda. You haven’t brought any reason why death knights wouldn’t be beneficial, and you certainly aren’t refuting what I’ve pointed out:
No, it isn’t.
Like dual spec? Or maybe like death knights?
What was Blizzard’s rather fixed view of dual spec during Vanilla/TBC?
I suspect you’re just doubling down on your agenda. But of course, my statement holds.
You seem to like dual spec, and have some unreasonable attachment to it that may be clouding your judgement. Death knights are an equally reasonable change to TBC Classic (or equally unreasonable, depending on your preference there).
Some players will benefit, and some more than others. Some players may actually find dual spec to worsen their gaming experience. I certainly did when it was first introduced during WotLK.
This seems speculative, and shortsighted.
This directly contradicts a former point you made.
Adding dual spec requires dev time to be spent doing something.
No it isn’t. It isn’t even a particularly accurate description of what might require dev time. Unless you are talking about altering mechanics or adding new mechanics, changing difficulty could be as simple as changing values of some configuration variables.
i agree
we should also add monks.
pros:
alleviates the tank drought.
adds new content.
cons.
there are none only the no changes crowd will dislike this not at all game breaking change.
(let’s just ignore the fact their are no tier tokens for them in bc we can just add them in.)
the joke for this thread went right over your head.
Im not a huge fan of changes but gosh darn would monks make me toss that out the window. Monk is fun af.
While this is fine, it disregards Blizzard who has the final say anyway, so I take them as guidance.
Not everything in Retail is bad and it is tiresome to have people use Retail as synonymous with bad.
It does invalidate it since it is behavior that already exists. It isn’t emergent behavior, people already get tossed loot that would otherwise go for DE “for OS” and it just rots in their bank, and they never respec. I have a dozen or so +Healing items in my bank mostly collecting dust but it could get used so I maintain it for the time being. Dual Spec doesn’t change that.
Not at all. People already port out and get summoned back if swaps between fights are a necessary thing, and speed running teams are already minimizing Tanks/Healers as is to the point of dangerously stacking too much onto singular Tanks/Healers. This doesn’t change the meta just because someone can swap inside out of combat, it just shortens the time of a practice already in place.
This is a guild matter, nothing more, and one that already exists with singular specs. Hybrids will always have a higher likelihood of being mandated to be a strict spec (since off-specs perform entirely different roles) than pure classes (since many pure DPS can still do more than is necessary to kill bosses regardless of spec). This doesn’t move the goalposts an iota and is grounded in the hybridness or lack thereof.
I’m fundamentally most useful to my raid by maintaining four sets of gear, something no other class can even try to say they can do the same. That fundamental difference between Druids and everyone else is one of class, not spec.
At a cost, it eliminates the need to seek out ramping cost retraining for routine and frequent spec changes between two explicit setups. The former Blizzard assumption was that specs were semi-set in stone strategic choices that were discouraged from swapping repeatedly, so the assumption by Blizzard was that if you wanted to do both PvE and PvP, you had better pick a hybridized set of talents and stick with it. This assumption was proven to be unequivocally poor as players preferred instead of to be ideally specialized for whatever content they did and would either stick to one area of play nearly exclusively (the majority of players) or outright ignore the cost of swapping and just swap very regularly (the minority of players). In neither case do you have people making strategic decisions about the talents themselves, as intended, but rather people were refusing to compromise their best performance.
This is why GC noted in his interview with Neth (who originally posted about talents being strategic decisions) that the old talent system was simply being circumvented, and that no amount of endless testing/tweaking/retuning was going to make it such that people would stop seeking out the inevitable best setups for respective roles or game modes.
It solves the problem of an archaic system that doesn’t actually do its intended job.
Oh please, this DK thread is a bad form of satire by a known #nochanges zealot.
Dual spec came about as a result of Vanilla and TBC.
DK’s came about as part of the lore/story of WotLK.
I don’t know why you keep insisting on treating unlike things as alike, but that kind of special pleading needs to stop.
This is only true if you obliterate all of the numerous differences in the two changes to reduce them down to merely “a change” which is absurd.
How?
It is neither, and you’re just being dismissive at this point. There is nothing speculative about Dual Spec not requiring new zones, areas, gear, or quests. This just appears trolling at this point.
Not all Dev time is created equal. I shouldn’t have to point this out.
This is shortsighted and speculative. Adding another 3-4 million health on Magtheridon doesn’t make him harder, it only makes him longer to kill, so you absolutely need something else added to his encounter if you want him to be a “harder” encounter. Adding another 3-4 million health to Gruul would fundamentally change his fight because he’s a soft-enrage fight and would require retuning to ensure players aren’t getting one-shot while doing high DPS and still having another half-mil to go.
Apparently it isn’t a joke to some.
Hey, it’s Nekogirl’s daily “I can’t find a tank… Won’t someone please think of the DPS!” thread.
Just roll a tank, man. It’s really not that bad. Tanking is a blast!