Sure if you can justify adding them, you’re welcome to start your own thread discussing the pros and cons.
Completely irrelevant. But good straw man. Congrats.
Why contention? I’ve simply made a point. You are the one bringing contention.
Neither are WoW Classic and TBC Classic. Neither, indeed, are Diablo II and Diablo II LoD, though the D2 LoD client is a superset and works for D2 as well, the reverse isn’t true, but so what?
Not sure what kind of point you suppose this to be. Have you ever coded anything? How does this matter for anything?
You might well be able to copy paste core algorithmic logic, but obviously not trivial code that has no meaning for the game but is the glue for interfacing with the client.
I’d challenge you on your understanding of meanings of words here. What do you mean by probably and how are you measuring it?
I’m not hung up at all. WoW is WoW, is and always has been. And sure Retail isn’t TBCC in the same way that TBCC isn’t WoW Classic; different clients bro.
It’s not so clean. Classic is based on an earlier version of the game, it’s an alternate path to sl so to speak.
My point here isn’t to twist the argument, rather I don’t think the distinction you’re making is an important one, and it’s not clear to me what point you’re trying to make by making that distinction.
1 Like
Jeez, ‘my point’ and ‘my contention’ are synonymous …
1 Like
This is not even remotely accurate.
What do you think you mean by Classic?
Both WoW Classic and TBC Classic are based on historical data that is server side, but have been released on much newer clients than they were originally.
You don’t think the distinction I am making is an important one? And what is that? That WoW is WoW? Is that what you are calling a distinction?
And what of whatever point you are making? Is it important?
Lol, in whose lexicon?
What’s you’re argument?
You’re just having fights over semantics. Literally. I have no idea what your actual position is.
I don’t even know what you’re actually trying to argue for or against at this point. Only that you aggressively object to various terminology I’m using.
I don’t even know if we agree or disagree at this stage.
The whole reason I replied to you in the first place was to state that you’re being unnecessarily pendantic and it’s unclear what your position is on the topic, at least to me.
4 Likes
Really? Literally everything that I stated. Obviously.
No, I’m. It. You are making ridiculous incredulous statements and I’m just saying, “nope” to them.
If you are literate, which I suspect you are since we are having a conversation through text, then it’s incredibly obvious what my actual position is, and I suspect you are either lying or insane. Look up and read. That’s my position.
What am I being aggressive about? You say Ing I’m wrong or you failing to give any sort of reason or explanation about what you think it is I am saying? Just read it. It’s all there.
We agree that everything I’ve stated is what I’ve stated. I hope, at least.
Ah, ok. About what?
I stated that WoW is WoW. And indeed, I believe that it is.
Lol you’re completely incomprehensible. I have literally no idea what you’re talking about.
I feel like this:
3 Likes
Is there anything I’ve stated that you have difficulty comprehending? If so, why precisely?
Well, having a common language is a requisite for conversation isn’t it?
Anyway, good luck to you.
What is your point? Are you for or against dual spec?
What I understand is that you don’t like my word choices and disagree with my position on something though I’m not sure what. You take particular issue with the idea that Wow may have different games. To you it is critical that we understand they are one game but seperate versions. Me, I don’t give a stuff and think you’re arguing about nothing.
1 Like
Join what context are you asking this? As far as I’m concerned everything relevant to my point has already been posted above on the record.
Fair!
Truth be told I like you and your word choices. I’m simply making comments that seem obvious to me. I’m not trying to offend you.
It isn’t critical. It’s again just something that is obvious to me, but you’re arguing it, so shall I say it’s my words or something else that is causing that argument?
Dual spec please.
/thread
1 Like
But the majority wants it.
3 Likes
We do we really really #DualSpeck
They can’t add things from 14 years ago into the game that aren’t horrendously broken, for god’s sake don’t ask them to add something entirely new into the game lol.
1 Like
So the sub is what make it one game? If you buy EA subscription does that make all games EA provide for EA subscription one game?
World of Warcraft has 2 branches: Retail and Classic.
Classic is a different game.
Can you look at Shadowlands and tell me this is the same game you played back in 2007?
I can’t.
It isn’t.
The game changed so much over the years that it is just not the same anymore.
If we keep asking to add things to TBC that doesn’t exist in TBC and don’t solve any problem in TBC we might just go play the other game called Shadowlands.
I would say the same for dual spec, but both of them have the same problem: they are not a solution to any problems we have in TBC, therefore… thanks for making the argument for me. I love this.
2 Likes
People have justified adding dual spec to TBC.
And other than #nochanges no one can provide a downside.
3 Likes
Except they didn’t.
They are all like “muhh I can’t pay the re-spec, I’m cheap, I need free real state, plz welfare, retail features in TBC plz”.
They tried to:
- “fix” the tank shortage with dual spec, which is basically another fallacy of dual-speccers
- fix the game subscription drops (like people are really leaving the game because there is no dual spec duhhhhh)
- say that it is fundamentally necessary to the game, while it never was and never will be.
See.
Dual Spec is just a cry out from people who want things delivered in their hands and no effort at all.
I strongly suggest playing retail. You will love all the conveniences you have, even the convenience store.
7 Likes