Dual specs were never going to be a thing in TBC because there was no reason to add them. Its supposed popularity wasn’t going to make the grade for a change.
No you don’t.
Lol.
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/tbcc-what-am-i-gonna-do-with-allll-these-chickens/1154469/2
Relevant bits bolded.
If from this you actually believe Blizzard doesn’t care about authenticity, you’re just…yeah. Certainly not eligible for reasonable dialogue.
1 Like
None of which refutes what I said:
Being leery of being too heavy handed after already making changes just means authenticity is a consideration, not the ultimate decider. Removing authenticity from the highest priority doesn’t eliminate authenticity wholesale.
Because authenticity isn’t maintained purely for authenticity’s sake, as your quote proves, my point remains. An authentic abuse case was found, corrected, with heavy consideration going forward with how MUCH of a correction and absolutely no end-point whatsoever. The authenticity comment later on only serves as a sign-posting for the song-and-dance to get the buff being authentic, nothing more. It doesn’t eliminate:
Then WCL killed logs with Squawk and that was that. Blizzard didn’t need to make further adjustments based upon player behavior because players modified their behavior anyway.
So as I said before:
You’re the one suggesting they had “abandoned” authenticity, which is clearly false, and thus the entire argument that is being attacked.
I never said authenticity was the sole decider, just that it’s clearly an important consideration. This is a factual statement. It can’t be argued by any of your poor comprehension skills.
Also: lol at the mental gymnastics you do to try to not look like a flippant fool when gettin’ straight walloped with a link after trying to call what you thought was a bluff.
Heck, I think you should start a mental gymnasium with all the circles you’re about to run around in the coming posts.
2 Likes
It is a single sentence Zipzo, at least have the minimal honesty and decency to read the ENTIRE claim before firing off a really bad response like this.
My claim:
Your summary of my claim:
These are not equivalents.
I know you like trolling me but this is just bad reading.
Please, Jedi of grammar, explain to me how “moved on from” is so very different from “abandoned”.
Holy crap the END of the sentence.
“The Devs have moved on from authenticity for the sake of authenticity”
vs
“The Devs have moved on from authentiticy”
You can’t just clip off “for the sake of authenticity” and argue against half of a short sentence. Don’t be such a spoon.
EDIT:
“I won’t eat anymore” vs “I won’t eat anymore bread” have two very different meanings Zipzo. At a BARE MINIMUM at least finish a sentence before responding.
1 Like
Devs heavily considering authenticity, and therefore possibly being prevented from making a change due to authenticity, is quite literally: authenticity for the sake of authenticity.
They might land on either side. It might land on the side of “okay let’s make some light-touched changes”, or it might land on the side of “nope, authenticity trumps the need to do anything here”, but in the case of the latter, that’s literally authenticity for the sake of authenticity.
Keep doin those somersaults, you are the king 
1 Like
No, it literally isn’t.
Authenticity for the sake of authenticity means that even if it produces wonky player behavior, oddball responses from the game, etc, it is kept regardless. This is #nochanges.
Authenticity being heavily considered in light of other factors means that starting from a place of authenticity is a good baseline, but player behavior/desires/needs can and will supersede authenticity. This is #somechanges.
Every change is a deviation from authenticity, and TBCC has had gobs more changes than Classic ever did. The Devs haven’t repudiated any of their statements at TBCC’s launch, rejection of #nochanges, or rejection of authenticity as the highest goal.
You’re either being intentionally obtuse, or you’re truly not capable of grasping this rather obvious nuance.
If they believe authenticity beats out the change it is literally because the player based reasoning wasn’t important enough to alter. You have it entirely backwards.
I’m not the one with horrendous reading comprehension.
So you think that authenticity must not be at all related to them not implementing dual spec, huh.
Then what?
To annoy you and the “vast majority” of players who want it?
I don’t know what Blizzard thinks, they’ve not spoken on the subject.
Yeah but your best guess, Fasc, using all the available knowledge and history we have that has brought us to this moment, dual spec-less.
Come on. Take a shot.
Why have they not implemented dual spec?
I don’t really care about guessing, hence why people aren’t playing around with predictions but rather simply making a request to Blizzard to incorporate Dual Spec into TBCC sooner rather than later.
1 Like
Always amusing how people try to skew their argument with terms like ‘the lack of dual spec’. There is no lack. They’re not withholding it. It’s not a part of TBC. No more so than Death Knights, dungeon finder, inscription, or any other part of Wrath.
1 Like
No they were actually going to add it but then all those pesky gatekeepers got in the way.
Stating there is a lack of Dual Spec is a simple fact. There is no Dual Spec in TBCC presently.
It isn’t an implication of judgment against Blizzard.
Why do you insist on making things emotional?
1 Like
Honest question, has anyone here actually considered the technical side of things? Think about the amount of things they’d have to change/modify to get dual spec in the game.
I ain’t defending or arguing for either side but seriously, even if Blizzard wanted to add in Dual Spec, I wonder whether they’d wanna devote that kind of time to it when it’s just gonna get added in Wrath anyways.
He’s just keeping you honest by forcing you to reconcile with the fact that dual spec missing is not an inherent “lack” or handicap, in the negatively connotated sense.
If it were added, it would merely be an additional (albeit very unnecessary) feature that nobody should expect or require, as TBCC is quite suitable as is in comparison to the original it is attempting to mimic.
All things said and done, they’re not going to add it, we’ve been saying that for months (correctly), and you can’t even answer a simple question:
Why do you think they didn’t add dual spec? I’m not asking you to tell me exactly why they didn’t. I’m asking you to tell me why you think they didn’t.
There is a reason. We can use your thinking meats to sort of isolate that reason.
Is it because:
a. Blizzard loves to piss off their player base.
or
b. Blizzard thinks dual spec falls outside of the line in terms of being an appropriate non-TBC tweak to the TBC formula.
There really isn’t any other feasible, or rational argumentation for why they decided not to add it.
Using common sense, it stands to reason that “b” is likely the answer here.
1 Like
The tech side of this is on the weaker end of the argument simply because Dual Spec isn’t a new thing, has had a number of iterations, etc.
Also given Blizzard’s spaghetti code, there’s a good possibility that something as minor as adding the new daily quest for Alliance only PvP took longer than say making same faction BGs.
It is certainly a valid possibility that shelves many changes and tweaks, but no one here can pretend to know just how much weight to give it. There was an old Dev post on the forums that got nuked ages ago that detailed how a bugfix for Illidan caused half the Barrens’ NPCs to just be utterly broken. It was an amusing story but even at the time it revealed just how poorly optimized their coding structure actually is.
Except that’s not at all what is admitted. We lack Dual Spec, desire it to be added, and feel that TBCC is diminished without it. His follow-up statement:
This puts the onus on Blizzard, as if we’re whining to Blizzard that they took something away from us that they promised. No one has made this statement.
Again Zipzo, you only read part of what is said and respond poorly.
Okay Nostradamus.