Dual Spec.. please?

I sometimes like to transport myself around town.

Did I just admit to using a train?

2 Likes

I think you are forgetting how classic hunters worked in naxx.

You wanted 2-3 of them for trank shot and no more. And again, this was the best guild on the realm, they already had their hunters. I was a backup option.

But hay, you know all things.

I suppose that’s possible.

So I understand why you thought I admitted to something, it’s broken logic but I see the thought process.

I still don’t understand what you mean here.

The poll I’m looking for is Blizzard polling it’s players about Dual Spec for Classic. You’re giving me directions but it’s like you’re speaking Spanish. It makes no sense.

Can you please explain this? You’ve been changing the subject each time which is only making it harder to understand.

Sorry, but after all your accusations of me lying you’ve kinda shown you’re just arguing in bad faith. Not buying into any semblance of information gathering now.

Maybe choose a different approach next time.

1 Like

Yeah I definitely don’t appreciate liars and you don’t seem to appreciate being called out for lying. We probably shouldn’t try to have a discussion.

1 Like

Neither do I, especially ones that create this pretense like they’re asking for information when their intent is just to accuse the other party of lying no matter what.

2 Likes

Yeah those are the worst. I’m glad I gave you a chance to validate your information before I ever accused you of anything.

2 Likes

Yeah that’s totally what you were doing. :rofl:

1 Like

Is OK fair enough however I would like to point out in every single example Is that those people used it wasn’t just one person they had help.

And if we’re gonna go in to that you can make that argument either way I mean if there are people that Don’t want duel speck in the game as much as you claim.

How can every single one of those Poles Is word in the majority of in the negative right or overwhelmingly positive most of the polls I see it’s generally 67% to about 40%.

I mean if it’s really that easy to manipulate Is by one person How commit wasn’t something overwhelming like Is 98% to 20%.

Or something like that like why make it look eat somewhat even If you can literally get that hot much higher.

I mean You’re seeing people are willing to argue on the forms about it but they’re not willing to who Go that little bit extra mile to rape Poles over and over again.

I mean On the other side If it is so easy a rag how come those online polls weren’t 90 is 98 to 20 in favor.

See what I mean if or that easy to manipulate if it’s really that easy Then how come it’s fairly even Or not fairly even per say but It’s never such a huge majority you’ve never seen a poll like in the nineties or even 80% it’s always Is about 67 to about 75% in a favor To about 40 Is to 48% against.

Is the idea to make them even to make them more believable See what I mean when you start really looking at that perspective if it’s that easy to do then how can not make your majority win?

How can the smug little consensus thinkers, in all their tepid mediocrity, even begin to think they’re right or doing it right?

Just look at retail and gaming as a whole that the media and the consensus has manifested.

It’s a little more complex but you can make a bot that will vote for X whenever Y gains a vote.
Let’s say Y and X in reality are 50/50 in votes.

The bot would change that to a 25/75.

If you use a bot that does a vote for every 2 votes it goes closer to a 35/65. That’s not exact math for that but it gives you an idea.

It is also possible to make a bot that will vote for X whoever it goes under 65% and continue to vote until the percentage is over 65%.

The easiest bot is just one that will endlessly vote for you, but the others are very possible.

Either way though I don’t think popularity for a change should take priority over a very clear design goal laid out by the origional game designers of tbc unless there is an actual need for the change. And as of yet all that has been shown for pro dual spec is that it is a want. The lack of dual spec isn’t preventing people from playing in an aspect of the game, they are chosing not to because they don’t want to pay the gold to be fully optimal, or because they don’t want to do it unless they are fully optimal for the content.

This falls into player choice, they are chosing not to do other content, they are not prevented from doing so by some sort of queue time or other restricting factor.

Okay, I’m looking at retail.

What exactly am I supposed to be seeing here?

1 Like

This is not a contradiction:

Just because I think someone made a baseless assumption doesn’t mean I am claiming the assumption is always wrong. There’s no contradiction there. Maybe the assumption was right, but it was still baseless. It’s an unsubstantiated claim, but that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily an incorrect claim. No contradiction there.

Now for this one:

No it’s not.

Also this is some dishonest quoting you got here - especially this:

You quote part of a sentence to make it look like I was saying something different to what I actually said:

The thing we were arguing about 1000 comments up (not 3 as you asserted) was your proposition that

Here you are Implying that any other feature for WoTLK should be backward compatible to TBC because in this case it was.

My comments in reply can be summarised as this - while some features from WoTLK may be compatible with TBCC it is a baseless assumption to believe that they are. That doesn’t mean they’re not and there is no contradiction here. It just means you can’t assume features are backward compatible. You need to assess it on it’s own merits.

But to you any appeal to nuance is a contradiction. You then jump around saying “gotcha!” whenever you catch someone claiming that even if in one instance something is the case it doesn’t mean you can assume it is always the case.

No it doesn’t, it means that that one specific feature is compatible, but more importantly what it does is invalidate the argument that just because something wasn’t added till wrath it automatically doesn’t belong in TBC Classic.

I know this confuses the #nochanges crowd.

1 Like

I edited that to be clearer - I meant that the comment implies it not that the feature implies it.

I know that you have trouble determining the difference between some and all. I have never claimed to support no changes ever at all. None of my arguments boil down to #nochanges. You can repeat the mantra that I do over and over and you are still wrong. You are still peddling misinformation and you are still playing a strawman.

I’m not even opposed to all changes in relation to respeccing. Most of my issue in this topic is the complete bad faith with which the pro dual spec argument is being made. Some have acted in good faith but there’s a solid group of you who are being completely disenguinious and treating the forums like a political advertising campaign.

Heck the OP of the thread even admitted to not being open to discussion - claiming that this is a petition aimed at the devs …

To be clear there have been some people on the pro Dual spec side operating in good faith such as Huffpost and to an extent Megarune. But on the whole the people presenting the case are being incredibly intellectually dishonest and manipulative in their claims.

I’m not that passionate about the issue so much as I am passionate about the principle of opposing something like this being pushed to prominence through dirty forum tricks, dishonesty, and community pressure tactics.

But the guys who are against it are all unbiased, objective, and really smart guys, right?

Did you really just call us manipulative? :laughing:

Dishonesty? Dirty tricks?

Come on dude, only because you have an opinion that is only shared with an incredible minority, it doesn’t mean the others are dishonest or playing dirty.

I am also not pressuring anyone. I am mainly talking to the devs in hope they are reading it and just present them my (our) wish with some background information such as polls about the topic. I am not saying anyone he or she should drop his or her opinion.

You are still thinking this thread is for the players, but it’s still meant for the devs. Nothing dirty about that and the truth also couldn’t be more honest, I guess! I am not making it, I am just presenting it.

Actually I want to single this out. I’m not claiming that something is invalid because it wasn’t added until wrath. My claim is that it’s presence in Wrath doesn’t make it automatically valid in TBC. I am suggesting you need to substantiate why it should be added on it’s own merits.

Again you have created a strawman where you are showing me stating that a feature being in WoTLK doesn’t make it compatible with TBCC and then you are wrongly claiming that I mean that because a feature was added in WoTLK it can’t be compatible with TBC. I’m not saying that at all.

It might be compatible but you have to demonstrate why in terms other than that it was compatible in WoTLK.

I’m not contradicting myself here - I’m saying you can’t use it’s presence in one expansion as justification for its inclusion in another without other supporting arguments.

1 Like

Yes my bad - I assumed the title “Burning Crusade Classic Discussion” meant it was a forum to discuss stuff rather than a petition posting platform.

It appears that we are wasting each others time talking to each then.

I’ll limit my interaction from herein for this specific thread to - No I do not support this petition at all. Edit - this is sarcasm btw (in case it wasn’t clear)

It is, but as usual you have a very limited pov about that.

It doesn’t inevitably means its a discussion between player A and player B. It can also be a discussion between players who want something and the devs. My opening post have made it very clear who I am talking to, or are you able to make our wish come true? No? See…

Again, I am not asking about your opinion with dual spec. I am interested in the opinion of the devs and if they are willing to implement it please, because so many people are in favor for it, for very good (imo) reasons!