Blizzard seems to disagree with you, considering dual spec isn’t in tbcc still.
Is that why you’re here making multiple replies and bumping the same thread over and over again?
Show me where you got 400k. While you’re at it, show me how to poll 400k people.
Yeah, the majority of people who want something want it.
Good thinking there, Holmes.
How so?
Were they unable to queue and enter BGs?
Again, what does this have to do with Dual Spec?
Yeah, clearly because Blizzard hasn’t announced a new expansion after Shadowlands means there won’t be one.
Clearly because Blizzard hasn’t announced WotLK Classic, it means it will never be released.
That’s what I always assume: if something doesn’t exist it obviously means Blizzard doesn’t want it to exist.
Good job there, Holmes!
If they didn’t have multiple hours of time to play, yes.
In pve if you are lacking in time you can plan around your limited time to still do content. Can only play 1 hour a day? You join a guild that raids 4 nights a week for 1 hour each night. No form of pre-planning could get a horde player into a BG without waiting in an hour+ queue time, which meant for many players, BGs were not even an option.
I was comparing reasons of why same faction BG got into the game to show it was fixing actual problems, not just being added for a want. The lack of dual spec does not prevent you from doing any form of content. You have the option of doing it in a less optimal talent build or paying up to 50g at your class trainer to optimize your talents for the chosen content.
Dual spec does not fix a problem, but it definatly changes how people will approach the game. If you want stand the game without dual spec wait for wotlkclassic or go play something else. Stop trying to make changes to tbcc that go DIRECTLY AGAISNT the design goals and intent of the game that tbcc is supposed to be making an attempt at recreating, which is tbc. And we have a blue post from the devs at the time staring dual spec (in the form of multi spec) would be going directly against the design goals and intent of tbc.
Hmm, sounds like that’s their problem.
Or maybe they should–what is it you guys always say?–play Retail, right? 
The lack of same-faction BG does not prevent people from doing PvP.
Neither does same-faction BGs. Neither does the change in Druid energy. Neither does the boost to level 58. Neither does the addition of a luxury mount…
1 Like
Dual spec needs to happen asap. TBC is dying faster than original.
1 Like
Both of these were in tbc through the recruit a friend feature and the buy able cards.
The druid energy change was something that could be argued for design intent vs design reality.
Same faction bg did fix a problem, it’s u derstandable that as an alliance player that had instant queues you wouldn’t understand the problem though as you didn’t have to experience it. And you still ig ore the other reason of gear discrepancy between factions due to the massive difference in queue times and the rate of honor and bg mark gains between factions being very different.
It’s ok though, I understand that you play alliance and feel entitled to having things handed to you.
Goalposts moved.
dual spec pls!
This is where I think the discussion has been locked into an unresolvable circle - the result of logical errors.
TlDR - You are assuming a false equivalence and misapplying implication in the other direction. Please understand what an actual contradiction is before accusing people of making one.
Detailed bit:
You think I’m contradicting myself - so, here I will break it down for you logically. Obviously I expect you to reject this as “sophistry” on the basis that you don’t comprehend it. But for the sake of productive discussion I will make the working assumption that you’re an adult with a secondary school education and an IQ higher than 80. All unproven assumptions I’ll admit.
The original claim I’m refuting is originally from Ziryus.
My reading of Ziryus’ claim is this: “The success of DS in WoTLK proves that it will also be successful in TBCC”.
My counter claim is this: “WoTLK is a different context and if I accept that DS was successful in WoTLK (I’m not sure I do btw) this does not imply that it will necessarily be successful in TBCC”.
Ziryus then counters this with: “Your counter claim necessarily implies that no feature can be added to TBCC that was not in TBC originally - therefore you support #nochanges”.
To which I reply: “No, your claim does not follow my claim logically and I am open to changes being assessed on a case by case basis where they respect the original design goals of the game, example - I have accepted the case for benefits to Arena”.
Then you come in with: “You’re contradicting yourself. #somechanges - goldfish brain lololz!1!1!”.
So - here is why I am not contradicting myself.
Let’s take the two core claims I’m making and the claims you think are contradictory.
Claim A: “A feature being successful in WoTLK does not imply that it will always necessarily be successful in TBCC”.
Claim B: “There is a case where a successful feature from WoTLK could be successful in TBCC”.
Ziryus’ claim.
Claim C: “Claim A implies not Claim B i.e. there is not a case where a successful feature from WoTLK could be successful in TBCC”.
Your claim.
Claim D: “Claim B contradicts Claim A because Claim C”.
My current claim: Claim D is incorrect because Claim C is fundamentally logically flawed. It assumes that Claim A and Claim B implies Claim C. But there is no established connection between the two claims. The mistake in logic is due to the fact that Claim C does imply Claim A. Let me demonstrate. Assuming the claims are true (for sake of argument):
Claim C (which is equivalent to Not Claim B): “There is not a case where a successful feature from WoTLK could be successful in TBCC”.
Does actually imply =>
Claim A: “A feature being successful in WoTLK will not always necessarily be successful in TBCC”.
If you assume there is no case where a feature not existing in TBC can be successful in TBCC then it necessarily follows that a feature successful in WoTLK is not necessarily successful in TBCC - because the first claim says no change can be.
Now this is the problem - Ziryus and yourself are saying the reverse implication is true.
I am not claiming that Claim C is true I’m saying the opposite:
Claim B: “There is a case where a successful feature from WoTLK could be successful in TBCC”.
and this does not imply
Claim A: “A feature being successful in WoTLK will not always necessarily be successful in TBCC”.
So to summarise the flaw:
The fact that (Not Claim B does imply Claim A) does not imply (Claim A does imply Not Claim B) therefore if my claim is (Not Claim B does imply Claim A) then saying I am also claiming Claim C (which is equivalent to Not Claim B) is false. I have made no contradiction in my claims.
/QED.
Edit: I miscalculated some of the logic and corrected it. It’s actually a pretty tricky bit of logic given the way the negated propositions were reversed. Just a quick look at nothing but my original claims reveals there’s no contradiction there. Claim A and Claim B don’t contradict each other on the face of it.
1 Like
The argument is not arbitrarily that dual spec worked in wrath.
Once again we know the exact mechanics of dual spec and the problems it solved. Those problems are exactly the same in TBC Classic, nothing about the basics of specs and how they interact with the various forms of content is any different.
You want to pretend that wrath is some fundamentally different game than TBC, but in reality it’s quite similar and in the ways that matter in regards to dual spec virtually identical.
No, just the result of you continually being inconsistent.
That’s fair. But I find your premise unconvincing because I don’t think we know how those mechanics impact TBCC give that TBC had very different talents schemas to WoTLK.
So you say, incorrectly.
I freely admit that due to the double claims and the reversals of implication being done by you and zyrius to counter my basic claims the logic of why your counters are false is very difficult to follow. But it is fundamentally correct. Your positions have been the ones that obfuscate. Thus why it is difficult to point out how. But my post above does demonstrate your error.
My basic claim A and claim B were solid and logically consistent. It’s your wrongly applied reversal of my claims that is extremely complicated. I get why you found it hard to follow.
Maybe if you came at this with an aim to discuss in good faith we could reach simpler conclusions. As it is your aim is to prove I am inconsistent rather than to understand what is being claimed and communicate with it. You’re trying to force my comments into a position they don’t fit #nochanges. And doing so is complicated work as you fighting against reality.
1 Like
Which you mean “correctly” because you’re inconsistent. And contradictory.
They’re really not in concern to dual spec. People don’t want dual spec because of the minor details between various specs, they want it because at a high level different specs fulfill vastly purposes. Be that tanking vs healing or pve vs pvp or whatever, nothing about wrath is different than TBC in that regard.
You can say that with a straight face or are you cracking up behind your monitor and keyboard as you type?
Do you read patch notes? A lot of talents and core skills changed between TBC and WoTLK.
1 Like
Nice selective quoting because you didn’t like the overall point.
The differences in talents between TBC and wrath do not change that.
Just like how most people who have multiple cars have them for very different purposes, like a work truck and a minivan, not so they can have a different colored interior.
I quoted the bit that related to my response. I didn’t miss represent you but I only quoted the relevant bit. Nothing like the misquotes you guys pull on me.
I’d love to quote all of it but the forums delete the whole quote when I try to.
1 Like
I think they do. Because they work to remove a lot of niches. Niches are a bigger deal in TBC than they were in WoTLK and that potentially impacts on how DS effects the balance.
I’m not saying it proves it I am saying they’re different enough to not be freely interchangeable between expansions.
One case in point is Arena. I think a solid case for benefit has been presented with controlled risk on that front.
I’m not asking for proof here just that you make reasonable claims and can address counter claims convincingly in good faith. Maybe I’ll still disagree but at least that becomes a productive discussion.
1 Like
People want dual spec because of the bigger picture that specs often perform fundamentally different roles. IE healing vs tanking or pve vs pvp, the details of the spec doesn’t matter.
Just like how if I have a pickup truck for work and a mini van for the kids the color of the interiors is a lot less important than the basic functions they’re for.
1 Like