He bumps the thread too.
1 Like
I have not a single time said anything to you with the intention to deceive. I have absolutely zero incentive, nor am I even in the business of habitually lying for no reason at all…
I mean, offer me a million dollars and I might lie for someone.
But, free of charge, on a WoW forum? Sorry, but you’re guilty as charged. You pretty much drop accusations of lying at the drop of a hat, and youre on an endless loop of trolling. You’re one rude-as-heck individual, and that’s pretty much not up for debate.
I’m under no illusion that I’m your chief target for convincing, dont get it twisted, son.
I’m just enjoying the ride watching you flail about #somechanges-ing until the cows come home. We’ll be in Sunwell and you bozos will still be in here wasting your time arguing about how possible dual spec is.
If anything, I give you a real opportunity to bolster your argument by asking for any argument that isn’t just #somechanges, so Blizzard would actually have a reason to notice you…but failing to deliver would almost be high praise for the disappointing show that you’ve put on in all these threads…
2 Likes
However, I’m not relying on design intent as an argument. What I am suggesting is that it is a consideration that lends weight to the “no change” argument in this instance.
You’ve disagreed with me on this before but I think the notion of falsifiability is important here.
If the position I maintain is unfalsifiable then it’s effectively moot. There’s no way to resolve the argument. But it is falsifiable on grounds other than “design intent”. Admittedly the heuristic I use is not falsifiable and in this respect its not something we can resolve. But the claims I have made can be assessed against that hueristic and be falsified. BTW the heuristic I’m using isn’t simply “no changes”, it’s more complicated.
If you could demonstrate one of the following I would more seriously consider the Dual spec argument - I’d essentially concede:
-
That there were a considerable impact to game play and the overall player experience by not having the feature - i.e. people were raid logging or not engaging in various activities such as open world questing, dungeons, PVP directly as a result of not having the feature. If you could demonstrate this on a large scale I would be willing to concede.
-
That the change was supported by most players with minimal objection - i.e. it’s a net positive and no players had serious objection to it.
-
It could be demonstrated to not impact on the overall balance of the game in hard to predict ways - is self contained.
Any one of these would lend weight to your cause in my view, and all three would be very compelling - such that I would probably change my position.
Now, all of these things have been claimed, however I have not been shown reasonable or convincing evidence for any of these claims.
When point 1) is claimed about Dual spec I find it counter intuitive. It makes no sense at all to me that people would do less dungeons and less open world content as a result of not having dual spec - especially where the reason given is their unwillingness to do this content to generate the gold to pay for it.
The one area in point 1) where I think a valid argument has been made is with Arena. People who play the game only to pvp and who only want a dual spec to be able to engage in enough PVE in order to fuel their instanced PVP. The part of the game they want to play is almost completely isolated from the other parts and thus they’re not skipping any content they would not normally skip in the course of pursuing PVP. This case is still arguably against the original design intent, but I think it’s justified.
Point 2) has had many informal attempts to demonstrate the popularity of the feature. I think it is safe to circumstantially claim that dual spec is very popular. However the strength of the popularity is disputed and so is the level of unpopularity. It looks to be divisive - both popular and unpopular. That makes it something not worth doing where it stands to break game design intent. It’s a lot of risk for little reward for Blizzard commercially.
Point 3) is very difficult to demonstrate and so far the best effort has been to state that Dual spec has already been road tested in Wrath and had no unintended negative consequences on other areas of the game. I have two problems with this - 1) I don’t accept that WoTLK is an equivalent platform with TBC. Niches are a bigger deal in TBC than they were in WoTLK for a start. 2) I don’t accept that there were no unintended negative consequences in WoTLK. For instance my own guild basically stacked certain dual spec configurations.
The only case I can see where point 3) is satisfied is again with Arena PVP. It’s a self contained environment with separate rulesets on a variety of features and thus is highly unlikely to have unforeseen negative impacts on other areas of the game.
With this in mind I am currently of the view that arguments for dual spec are unconvincing and insufficient.
I concede a case for a pvp only specialisation - not a toggle but a context based spec as this satisfies my conditions.
Now, where this gets interesting is that my conditions are somewhat arbitrary. It is a heuristic I use to determine which changes I support and which I don’t such that the game remains as authentic to the original as possible without becoming unfun. On this level the argument is unfalsifiable and unresolvable. If you don’t agree with my heuristic then we have nothing to discuss, we simply disagree, and that’s fine - we all have values and clashes of values happen but aren’t resolvable.
TlDR:
I am not opposing dual spec due to in principle opposition to change but rather as a result of a heuristic I use to assess the merits of change. This heuristic however is values driven and thus ultimately an “ought” rather than an “is”. Not something we will ever agree on. You can demonstrate that dual spec conforms to my hueristic and I will then concede - otherwise it’s basically a clash of values.
So #nochanages with extra words.
Explain why dual spec is actually bad in game.
1 Like
See - this is why I don’t bother answering your questions - because you throw this sort of reply. Essentially you didn’t understand my reasons so you forced them into your own paradigm - “everyone opposed to this change is against all change”.
Why bother - you’re just going to go “oh so #nochanges then” irrespective of the reasons I give. Because you are not open to anyone’s view but your own. You don’t want to see my point of view so everything to you will always reduce to that dichotomy. You need to reduce the discussion to a binary “he who is not for me is against me” position because you are not open to any compromise. Anything shy of “I agree with you 100%” will essentially be reduced to #nochanges in your view.
1 Like
I get you don’t like dual spec because you have some weird notions about how WoW should be played.
What is the actual in game harm of dual spec?
As do you. That is a values discussion.
The “harm” is that it risks changing the game in ways I don’t like, for instance creating less incentive for people to engage in groups for open world content, and creating spec stacking metas that could leave certain classes out in the cold.
Why would you have less fun playing WoW if dual was in TBC CLassic?
The “harm” is that it risks changing the game in ways I don’t like, for instance creating less incentive for people to engage in groups for open world content, and creating spec stacking metas that could leave certain classes out in the cold.
Allowing people to do more stuff without seeking others to counter balance their capabilities undermines the social nature of the game in ways I don’t find fun.
So you have no real reason.
You are just vaguely offended by the idea that others might enjoy using dual spec.
Whatever dude - it’s got to be the 100th time I have offered you a serious answer to your cringeworthy asinine questions only to be rewarded with … well this.
You know and I know we have nothing to discuss - you’re a dual spec zealot who only wants to provoke “discussion” in order to promote your own cause as a petition. Treating your questions seriously is like having a conversation through a silence chamber. There’s no point.
I get why you want dual spec though - it allows you to play the game the same way you have discussions - by yourself.
2 Likes
Specifically to me? Why are you being so technical?
There a reason you bolded that word for emphasis when the original post did not do any such thing?
Oh that’s right…because you’re incredibly rude and your only goal is to distort.
Keep on plugging that #somechanges, I’m sure Blizz will notice…I’ll keep bumping your thread even. I’ll do you a real solid. Hasn’t done much so far, it seems, but go get 'em tiger.
1 Like
Riger is a #nochanger with extra words. He finds that people do more stuff is no fun.
Zipzo is a PVE raid-logging feral druid which has access to both damage dealing and tanking in one spec. He rarely respecs; he is not effected by this problem.
Why are you wasting time arguing? Ziryus, they don’t want to hear. Do you realise that all points against DS is not about DS, it’s about something else. Something weird in their mind.
This is TBC, Blizzard will decide if they wanted DS. It may be implemented 1 month prior to WOLK, just like the boon in Classic. Guys, just stop please, play the damn game and forget about this topic.
You’ll be right here too arguing against dual spec. That’s so much more pathetic since you claim to know it won’t happen yet you still waste your time
Derpa derpa derp
Grown men arguing about how a video game should be played
I like how this riger guy is still being a shill while the game is in the worst state its ever been. Wow is dying dude. Maybe you should do something for the greater good instead of being an ignorant noob
Yes, to add emphasis. My response points that out.
I mean…it could, but it shouldn’t and hopefully won’t.
That’s because I picked my spec strategically so as not to need to respec too often.
It’s called…playing the game the way it was meant to be played.
In WOTLK when dual spec was added, I respecced back and forth all the time because it was an option.
In TBC I play within the framework. You have it backwards. I’m not unaffected because I don’t respec often. I don’t respec often so that in turn I am unaffected.
There’s a pretty large difference between the former and the latter.
Just because I used the word “you” doesn’t mean my comment only applies to you and only you in the entire universe.
Standard English comprehension would reason this is as obvious to any reasonable person reading that post, but you…you seem to be special in this regard.
Just like Ziryus…arguing with nobody but yourself.
No one can ever submit evidence to any of those things, or anything about the game at all because only blizzard has the data and they never release it. We can only make our best guesses and rely on anecdotal information. But I often mention adding dual spec in lfg chat, guild chat etc. Not once has anyone argued against adding it and always some people agree it should be added.