So explain to me why someone who would be OK with any change to TBCC, is a good candidate for discussing which changes would or wouldn’t be good for TBCC?
Conflict of interest doesn’t even quite summarize that scenario, you are legitimately biased.
1 Like
It’s so cute you asked for a line, you got one, then got upset that you were wrong.
No…you didn’t. You answered a completely irrelevant question that was not asked of you, that you made up.
I didn’t ask you what feature you wouldn’t like in TBCC.
I asked where your line was.
You have not answered.
If I ask you “How long does it take you to drive to San Francisco from Sacramento?”
And you say:
“Well, it wouldn’t take me 4 days”.
You have not illuminated the answer to my question much further than before I asked it. You’ve given an answer that, while true, informs nothing of what is being asked of you.
1 Like
I literally answered your question and gave you an example.
You didn’t like that.
No…you didn’t. You answered a completely irrelevant question that was not asked of you, that you made up.
I didn’t ask you what feature you wouldn’t like in TBCC.
I asked where your line was.
You have not answered.
If I ask you “How long does it take you to drive to San Francisco from Sacramento?”
And you say:
“Well, it wouldn’t take me 4 days”.
You have not illuminated the answer to my question much further than before I asked it. You’ve given an answer that, while true, informs nothing of what is being asked of you.
1 Like
There there, it’s okay, you were wrong, we can’t think any less of you than we already do so don’t be so upset 
I actually think that part of the division here is that many players prefer to play MMOs as solo games with social components while other players prefer the more traditional model of having player driven group play have a central role.
WoTLK was where the shift toward soloability and contrived grouping mechanics really became the design focus of the game. Most modern MMOs have conformed to that design.
It’s still a group game but the grouping is game managed and not player managed so much.
Old school MMOs left players in control of grouping but heavily incentivised grouping through designing class and specialisation niches, mob difficulty and mechanics etc…
From WoTLK MMOs were more designed to be soloable open world’s with prepacked instanced grouping systems like LFD tools and such. Class skills and talents were generalised so each class could be mostly self sustaining in most open world content.
It’s these two very different models and values around player driven group content and system driven content that clash in this particular topic. Dual spec is a feature that is right at the heart of these different values around what makes a good MMO.
Is a good MMO a soloable game with choreographed and system managed grouping or is a good MMO a social game that provides a platform for organic player driven grouping?
I would suspect the majority of those supporting dual spec would opt for the former and those against for the latter.
1 Like
So where is your line?
Or Are you just defaulting to #allchanges as usual?
Because telling me that you draw the line at TBCC implementing literal retail spellbooks with respective retail talent trees doesn’t exactly paint a very definitive picture.
I’m not sure why you can’t see that you have failed to answer the question.
There’s a million variables to how Blizzard could change a game. Maybe more.
Just because you named ONE change that you wouldn’t be OK with, does not help to demonstrate a line for which changes are too much.
Hint: the answer isn’t going to be a specific change. It would typically have to do with what is too far for you mechanically, gameplay or otherwise. Your answer should be more game design-related for it to make sense as an answer.
Edit: I’m going to continue ignoring your lame attempts at being cheeky for internet-win points, and actually getting the answer to my question.
1 Like
I gave you my basic line, does it make the game better?
I then listed some of the criteria I use to judge that and followed it up with an example.
I didn’t jut give you an example.
Wouldn’t this have been Blizzard’s intention behind every single change every made to the game after original TBC?
That means your line does not exclude literally everything that’s been ever added to the game after TBC.
Not exactly specific, nor helpful.
1 Like
Sure and one of the great things about hind sight is we get to see what has and what has not worked.
Which in the case of dual spec is a resounding yes
BTW the argument that the devs can make mistakes is equally applicable to decisions made before TBC.
You sure about that? It was removed not but 2 expansions later. Doesn’t seem like it’s what they ended up wanting for the game…
Which worked and didn’t is completely subjective, especially if it’s a feature that is still in the game today. For example, LFR has never been removed from the game, it’s a wildly popularly used feature, and yet I’m thinking you wouldn’t like to see it added…
1 Like
Given that one of the most pressing issues at the moment is low pop servers and faction imbalance I would have thought cross realm LFD would have been a much more popular suggestion. It’s a far more successful feature than dual spec was and alleviates far more relevant issues.
But here’s the thing it doesn’t It does not change the balance of the game warlocks and hunters are still overpowered.
Warriors and rogues and Milay Is are still at a disadvantage by default because of the way the fights work.
Does it give classes more utility yes But it doesn’t change the balance of the game I mean let’s be honest here these fights aren’t hard.
And yes technically you can have Every class have access to 2 Is different specs however depending on your class that’s just not going to matter and raid at least.
If you’re a rogue Is your combat swords Is daggers do not do good damage in pve We’ve seen this proven time and time again.
Is if you’re a rat paladin Is sure you can make an argument for the fact that well you can have an extra healer.
But Is realistically Is that maybe 1 or 2 fights And as far as Hunters Is maybe you have one person go survival for the debuff however if you’re not stacking enough agility just like pure agility it’s not worth it anyway
As far as warlocks go I mean You get seed by default And you’re probably Is doing the hybrid’s back because let’s be honest 3 damage multipliers all sacked up on each other yeah.
And sls for pvp So not really it doesn’t change the balance of the game as much as you think Chances are if you can’t kill a boss without Duel speck You’re not killing it with
Idk, it lasted 2 expansions before being removed.
How many expansions of wow have there been since it was added again?
Wotlk and cata = the 2 it was in.
Then mop, wod, legion, bfa, and shadowlands.
That’s 2 with vs 5 without since it originally got added. Seems like they didn’t like it in the game based on that track record. It’s under 30%. So seems like a bad thing to add to tbcc.
And almost not even, because it wasn’t added at WOTLK launch, it was added sometime in Ulduar.
2 Likes
Yep dual spec at the time was flawed. I remember being a big fan of the idea in WoTLK. We all thought it would end Tank shortages and pretty much do all the good stuff people are saying it’ll do in this thread. We campaigned for it as far back as original TBC.
Then when it got put into the game in early WoTLK it didn’t pan out the way we thought it would. It turns out two wasn’t enough. People chose to use their second spec for pvp and trash farming. We still needed to respec fairly frequently if we wanted to Tank or some such. Guilds such as the one I was in had people use the second spec to optimise trash clears.
So, Zyrius is not completely wrong that we have hindsight. We do, which is why this groundhog day debate is infuriating. We know how it panned out - even with an expansion that fully supported bring the player not the class it didn’t work as intended. It was a popular convenience feature but it didn’t solve any of these core problems. In the end they dropped it after two expansions for a more fully customisable option and coupled that with role adaptive gear.
If we are going to go down this road of scrapping design intent to “make the game as good as it can be” then maybe we need to look further down the line than WoTLK - to the talent option brought in for MoP.
I personally wouldn’t support that though as I do think it is important to try to stay somewhat true to the design intentions of the original game, else it loses any real identity tied to the original. But if that’s not an important consideration why stop at Wrath, why not go to a solution that actually worked? And this is where Zyrius’ position falls down. He has put WOTLK up as an ideal exemplar of the best wow could be but without any reasoning behind that than it happens to be the version he likes best.
And lest we forget, they still whine about tank shortages, endlessly, even in retail land.
1 Like
Just had a conversation with a friend about this. I mentioned the “gold sink” thing that everyone keeps bringing up.
“How many gold skinks are in the game?” He asked.
“Not many outside buying your Flying and Epic Flying,” I said. “There’s still repair bills, but also consumables, though.”
“Wouldn’t you have to buy different kinds of gear and consumables for different specs?” He asked.
Got me thinking that for anyone standing by the whole “gold sink” argument, realize that dual spec opens up another gold sink. For example, the consumables needed for healers are going to be different from tanks and dps.
So there you go. For anyone who think gold sinks are a good thing, realize that you get another one by having to buy more than one set of consumables.
1 Like
nice dodge.
“This is just nochanges with more words”
“if there was a change that actually changed nothing at all, I’d be for that.”
now, I’ve taken some shots at ziryus. I’m a little lost for this one.
I’m assuming you’re refering to change that can fall into a category, and that category is the thing you’re looking for.
So a new spell could fall into “new mechanical elements”?
In this respect, saying “well monks is going too far”. Is this implying that a new class is going to far? or just monks? if it just monks is too far, why is monks too far and not death knights? both are new classes.
“Hello chosen one, please save us all”
This is your leveling talent, this is your single target talent, this is your aoe talent.
so glyphs are okay?
free transfers seems to be the goto.
If you did both in content where you got those things?
Aren’t most advocating for dual spec to allow for swapping to farming specs, pvp specs, or under represented roles in dungeons?
Also consumables purchased from players is not gold sink.
With the exception of the AH cut, the AH is not a gold sink.