Was it in the original game?
I’m not making a #nochanges argument, please stop it.
“Faithfulness” is not one and the same with #nochanges.
2 Likes
Strange response.
Should be very simple to answer, not sure why you’re being so evasive.
Let me try again:
Was Seal of the Martyr in the original game?
You’re asking this question for a dishonest purpose, because the answer is obvious.
Don’t ask [rhetorical] questions intended to treat me like I’m an idiot, thank you.
Seal of the Martyr/Vengeance =| Dual spec.
1 Like
I mean, the information is readily available online. Most folks reading this thread can look it up themselves:
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Seal_of_the_Martyr
There you go! I give you a link with readily-available information.
Please kindly tell me when this ability was added to the game.
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade.
Any other history lessons you need?
You need to learn to make arguments without wasting time with pointless questions that you already know the answer to.
Roger that.
Going to provide a link here for everyone reading this thread:
https://postimg.cc/VS98ZbVf
It’s the same ability as Seal of Blood with a name change for faction flavor.
Using the argument that Seal of the Martyr means all Wrath of the Lich King additions are on the table is pretty much the most dishonest argument I’ve seen presented, but at least not unexpected.
For all intents and purposes, Seal of Blood and Seal of the Martyr are one and the same, the exact same ability, and therefore the introduction of SoB, is also the introduction of SotM.
1 Like
Sorry, but I’m just going to leave the folks reading the thread to make their own determinations now given you’re actively denying reality. I provided the information and a specific link to it.
Readers can now make their own determinations based on your denial and my acknowledgement of the facts before me.
Beyond this, I want to ask you, when did Blizzard offer monetized level boosting services?
Your entire approach is flawed because it assumes I’m against all changes (just like that clown Ziryus).
I’m not against all changes simply because it occurred in another expansion.
I am against changes that hurt the faithfulness of the TBC experience.
Thus, the answer to your questions is irrelevant.
You don’t even understand the argument, and thus you’re arguing a strawman.
…but do please continue prattling on…I’m sure that will earn you dual spec quicker…meanwhile I’m enjoying the game as-is, dual spec-less.
1 Like
My approach was simply to ask you about when a particular aspect about the game was put into the game. Not sure where you ever entered that equation.
How is that relevant?
Again, how is that relevant?
Irrelevant to what you are for or against? Yes, you’re correct. What you are for or against is entirely irrelevant.
What argument? I asked you a question and you answered contrary to the evidence I linked to you. That’s not an argument. That’s denial.
No, you’re continually replying to people who, your terms, are “prattling on.” And you don’t ever stop. Which entails you’re not at all comfortable playing the current game because you’re making every effort to combat folks who are asking for it here rather than enjoying the game you claim you are enjoying.
Speaking for myself, “it’s what lead to Retail being Retail”, means that the constant demand for QOL changes lead to a game that is convenience driven to a large degree. And because of that everything just feels smaller and achievements, insignificant. It lead to a “everyone deserves a medal” issue - if you think it’s a problem.
High level raiding doesn’t apply of course.
But in itself, Retail is not good or bad. It’s just a different game. People like it or dislike it for different reasons. The problem is that everyone uses it to suit their own Agenda, very much like people use “no changes”.
Why do you expect people to answer questions for you without an expressed purpose?
What is your goal here? Are you actually intending to make a point, or do you just come in to discussions to ask a bunch of questions and never make an actual argument?
Make an actual, clear, purposeful statement that summarizes the point you’re intending to make. That can actually be argued. You repeatedly asking me to summarize historical information does not create a discussion, it’s pointless wasting of your and my time.
This question you are asking me right now does not have an expressed purpose either. Meaning you don’t even hold yourself to this standard.
Hang on, this question doesn’t have an expressed purpose. By your standards, you need to express a purpose behind this question.
Hang on, I can’t answer this question because it doesn’t have an…
For the sake of coinciding with your standards, you must express a purpose behind this question. Otherwise, I cannot be expected to answer it.
Okay I don’t have any idea what all that nonsense was but it definitely doesn’t qualify as an actual response…lol.
You’re trying to evade being pressed to make an actual point.
My question to you: What is the ultimate point you would like to make with your questions?
Purpose: To identify what argument you’re trying to make so that I can make a counter-argument that addresses those points.
1 Like
Hang on, let me use your words to express myself:
LMAO WHAT??? HAHAHAHA. Dude, just stop.
There, you used those words before, so they should be adequate here as well.
If I’m trying to evade, then you’re saying I’m using your words to evade you which would mean you were trying to evade me.
Again, you said this:
Which is a question. But since you didn’t have an expressed purpose behind this question, then I don’t know how I can be expected to answer it.
Again, based on your standard.
The same goes for the following questions:
I don’t see an expressed purpose behind either of those questions which, again, was your standard.
Please hold yourself accountable to standards you impose on others, please.
To receive an answer.
I wasn’t making an argument. I wanted to receive information relevant to a point you made.
1 Like
Okay, well if you have no argument, why am I obligated to do research for you?
The information you’re asking for is not related to my reasoning for not wanting dual spec, so that’s why there’s a lack of motivation to answer questions that you already know the answer to, it leads down a road that isn’t relevant.
I mean come on, man, are you trying to be this difficult on purpose? 
Since you’re having so much difficulty just being clear, I’ll go ahead and make the point for you that I think you are probably trying to make:
“Blizzard added Seal of the Marty in WOTLK originally, which means its existence in TBCC is tantamount to the product being no longer faithful, and thus asking for dual spec does not diminish the faithfulness of TBCC because it is already not faithful due to changes already made”.
There, I did it for you. It’s a fair argument to make, but, it is one I disagree with because it hinges on the idea that Seal of the Martyr reduces the faithfulness of the experience, and I do not agree that it does.
Your next goal is then likely to present other changes as having diminished the faithfulness of the product to original TBC, as a justification for why dual spec should basically be free-game, and on those issues we would also disagree.
Dual spec fundamentally affects more than any of the the other changes made, at a level that is in it’s own category of change (for those of us who are happy with it not being in the game right now).
Jesus, dude, not that hard to just write clear and concise sentences. I get that’s it fun to write snappy one-liners and not have to think too hard about your responses but for the sake of everyone’s sanity let the conversation progress.
2 Likes
Because you made the original statement:
No where in “Completely irrelevant to it’s inclusion to TBCC” do you mention your wanting dual spec.
What you do or do not want is completely irrelevant.
No idea who this is addressed to so I won’t reply to it.
Zipzo, this Kanshu character is simply not worth your time.
2 Likes
Because they clearly havenit’s a clearly haven’t said give a feedback and they clearly haven’t said it’s been said they’re going to be adding changes anyway OK.