The slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy as it assumes no causal trigger. The fallacy is the assumption that just because one thing occurs the worse case scenario will eventually flow from that without need to establish any causal trigger.
In this case the slippery slope is not fallacious as those arguing it are also presenting a causal trigger for the slope.
The people arguing for change are arguing from the position that change has already occurred, so they themselves are suggesting that change should be treated as a trigger for further change.
The cause for the change - the problem the change is meant to address - is not resolved by the change and therefore a causal trigger to further change still exists.
Essentially those arguing against dual spec suggest that they don’t believe dual spec will resolve the issue of long group wait times. As a result they can logically anticipate more request for change following this change. There’s a causal trigger.
On the flipside, the very people claiming that the slippery slope is fallacious are arguing that because a change has occurred we must accept more change - they’re double dipping and arguing for a slippery slope when it suits them and calling it a fallacy when it doesn’t.
P.s. People seem to be well versed in Wikipedia writeups defining “logical fallacies” but show little understanding as to what actually makes them fallacious. Perhaps we should be devoting more time to understanding what makes a logical argument rather than looking for “fallacies” and gotchas. Understand what deduction, induction, reduction are. What a proposition and an implication are etc…
Two separate subscriptions for retail and classic so that we don’t have all those whiny kids asking for the same QoL mistakes that led us to the current retail mess playing classic?
You can push for those, and then that way we can have the servers that are meant to be as close to “authentic” as is reasonable, and + servers where you can request nearly anything with the confidence that it has a chance of being added, and everyone can go there and enjoy their odd picaso game that barely resembles actual TBC…and I would be totally fine with that existing.
There’s just no reason to strip this game entirely of all aspects that aren’t actively raiding or queueing for a BG/Arena. I know that’s what some people want, but we have another game for that under the same sub…
The other way around. We can have the current servers and continue to request changes. You can push for a truly authentic “No-changes” TBC server. They’ll only need to make one.
On the contrary, “Blizz-like” has always been the more popular direction for classic servers (including private servers). For better or worse functionally, gameplay wise, and player satisfaction wise.
“Funserver” is a term that exists specifically to help people avoid servers that do not properly follow the guidelines laid out by history and add a bunch of inauthentic features.
Would have been amazing but Acti-Blizzard has tied too much investment to it’s retail line and wouldn’t actually dedicate any development resources to it
In Vanilla I was a huge #nochanges proponent because I really wanted an authentic experience and it was pretty close.
We knew months before TBC release though that they were going to make changes and they were going to be big.
Was I disappointed? yep.
Did I adjust my expectations? 100% and I’m loving TBC 2.0 as much as I did classic and I’ll continue to play all the way through to end of Wrath 2.0(hopefully).
I also think you’re having a great time playing the game otherwise you wouldn’t be so passionate about it. Part of the reason I think so many people are enjoying playing right now are because of those exact changes Blizzard implemented.
If they didn’t push through the Seal of Blood/Seal of Martyr changes I would 100% be posting this from a horde character right now.
One thing that we are all lacking at the moment is hard data, which Blizzard does have.
I think Blizzard will look at their data and if they determine more players will stay with the game by adding dual spec in then will leave by not having it then eventually we’ll see dual spec.
Further I almost guarantee that if/when we get Dual Spec the decision will be 100% financial and have nothing to do with what the community wants.
Sure it does. If you change spec four times a day for a week it’s 1,400 gold. I’d say that’s a gold sink. It’s not comparable to boosts and bought mounts, they are unrelated.
Whales gotta come up for air sometime. See ya then!
Also, if not then surely the solution is to raise the gold cost not to reduce it?
It’s completely illogical to say that there is not enough of something to make it work and therefore we should remove what little of it remains. The opposite is true, if the gold sink isn’t high enough to make it work, the solution is to make it higher.
Problem is it makes it worse for some as well. ie In a raid or group a person is asked or told to switch or leave. The “choice” is that in some raid groups they will be told what their second option is or they will find someone who will.
I remember these threads in wrath.
How much negative gameplay experience is acceptable , I’ll take the position of none is acceptable.
In wrath the number of tank specs available doubled. The number of active tanks didn’t double.
Soon as a tank is geared or gaining rep out they have no incentive to run. Dual spec makes that happen much faster. ie Minus my pally or druid all the people I have interacted with while leveling, gaining rep, and gearing would have one one in lfg chat looking.
That super small minority of people will continue to respec whether dual spec is added or not. They are now so it isn’t that much of an inconvenience.
Brining up pvp is a bad idea. Long time ago Blizz made a post long ago that said 85% (I think it was 85% but can’t remember for sure) of the player base had never enter a bg. I played BGs whenever I wasn’t raiding and that really surprised me. I never ran into premades in AV then, now it is the norm (AV to me is pve that gives honor) and to me that shows how much the pvp playerbase has shrunk.
If you need to change your spec 4 times a day in a week then you don’t know how to play with your character.
Make sure to go back into the water then.
People made a campaign against LW because they felt they would have to roll into LW with no option.
With Dual spec in TBC, people will have to play two specs mandatory otherwise they will be replaced.
If LW was toxic, Dual Spec is 5 times toxic.
We said “Lw is optional”, you don’t need to roll it. People said “yeah, but we know it doesn’t matter and if you don’t roll into LW you will not get a raiding spot”.
