Dual Spec.. please?

WoW Classic Cataclysm Classic Discussion
5361

The point is I was seeking something a bit more narrow and define-able.

Saying “I’m okay with anything that improves the game” is vague.

Saying “I’m not OK with anything that changes this…unless people like it” is also rather vague.

His “specific” example was retail talent specs.

So basically his specific example was he wouldn’t be for something that literally will never, ever, happen, and that nobody is suggesting at all and nobody ever will suggest because it makes absolutely no sense.

So even after giving his “specific” example, the answer to the question of “where do you draw the line” is still left rather unclear, because he basically left the entire table of patches and newly implemented features leading all the way up to modern day retail WoW up for grabs, or rather, possible that he would be OK with it.

It’s actually not a meme to say he’s for #allchanges, because he’s literally left the door open for that all on his own. He is OK with literally any change, as long as people like it, or it “improves the game”, and this condition is literally applied to everything that has ever been added to the game post TBC. People “like” pretty much everything that has been added in varying amounts, because that’s the entire point of the Q&A process. People gave feedback, Blizzard changed/added stuff.

Some people didn’t like X change throughout the years, some may have not liked Y, but either way the point is clear: Ziryus won’t nail down exactly where he lands on a limit to changes because he has no argument other than the fact he wants it for his own selfish gameplay desires, and in order to continue repeating ad nauseam that all arguments against dual spec are #nochanges, his hands are tied with admitting that there’s any point in which he would be against a change because that would automatically make him a hypocrite and give us the opportunity to point out that he is #nochanges on that particular issue.

He lost, and he knows it. Watch him struggle away though and continue to try and re-route the conversation back in to his little box of saying the same thing over and over…

If he tries, just ask him: what (feasibly possible) changes are you against? He will have no answer because he knows it’s lights out for him if he does answer.

1 Like
5362

It’s completely optional to buy consumables for your current single spec right now, and this is also assuming a person is competitively raiding on both specs in different groups/raids, that both specs require different consumables, and thus needs consumables for both.

A single player isn’t using their second spec to raid as an alternate identity in another guild (because that’s impossible due to raid lock), and generally consumables apply generically, so the consumables you are buying for your current spec are likely to be the same ones you need for the alternate spec. Switching specs does not cancel your consumable buffs.

The obvious exception is hybrids like Druids or Paladins.

I’m just not seeing how this question is rational or logically applied, though.

Sure, gear may need to get enchanted or gemmed for the alternate spec, but you are also attempting to make the argument that the cost of that is basically identical to the gold sink created by the 50g respec. I’m not so sure these two things wind up the same value over time. Likely, the 50g respec is much more punishing to a person who actually uses a 2nd spec, over time.

This is not even to mention that gear spent getting consumables, enchanting and gemming, or crafting is not a gold sink. That gold goes to players, which means the gold remains in the economy.

A gold sink is when the gold is basically deleted entirely from the economy via the game taking it from you. So given what your buddy suggested isn’t even a gold sink in the first place…

3 Likes
5363

I’m interested in your line of query here as it’s something I’ve also pushed for - a heuristic.

We really have nothing to discuss when it comes to “I want x change because I like it and reckon it would be cool”. In this case the counter is “I don’t like it so there”. Boom - debate over, we each like different stuff.

But a heuristic is testable. It allows us to assess various claims against a set of guiding principles and then to claim they are either consistent or they are not. Then there is something to actually discuss.

I’ve many times offered up my heuristic so that productive discussion can be had around whether my view on dual spec is consistent. This has been met with fairly baseless claims that I’m contradicting myself or that the heuristic is reducible to #nochanges (a reduction I dispute).

But so far there has been nothing like that from the pro dual spec camp. They claim to have an entitlement to the addition of a dual spec feature on the simple and untestable basis that they want it and that’s that. There’s no set of principles around what changes are in and what changes are out beyond “I want this one”. Well, then that’s really the end of discussion. The answer is “So what? I don’t want this one”.

5364

This is why “#nochanges” exists in the first place.

It’s a fairly simple objective algorithm to judge something for if it should be in TBCC because you need only ask one simple question: “Was it in original TBC?”. It takes away all the discussion and opinionated portions of the process.

No?

Then no. Conversation over. Wam bam thank you ma’am.

Obviously we’ve had things changed though, but IMO just because #somechanges happened, doesn’t necessarily mean that subsequent changes discussed shouldn’t be held up to scrutiny for it’s respect to original TBC.

I think the obvious expectation is that the original TBC very much should be the “baseline”, with all changes added doing their best to respect the original design as much as possible, and be justified to the point of seeming absolutely necessary for the health of the game.

That’s what #somechanges meant to me, at least, but that’s obviously just my interpretation of Blizzard’s direction. Others clearly heard it different and apparently think retail talent trees could get added :roll_eyes:

5365

I think it is valid to argue for “no changes” as in “no more changes after this point”. The basis would be that you may feel that #somechanges has been a failure, or you never supported it in the first place. An entirely valid position. One I don’t hold though.

The reason I don’t side with “no more changes” (and I did toy with it a while back) is that I do feel that TBC was not a perfect exemplar of what the original developers wanted. That there may have been technical or market limitations at the time. That players negotiate mechanics in unexpected and often detrimental ways. That leads me to support the notion that the opportunity exists for the current crop of devs to take that original vision and attempt to more fully realise it - with some changes. That’s a worthwhile goal imo and one I support. Thus my support for #somechanges. But I would like Blizzard to more publicly and clearly defined the limits of it, and I take a conservative view of what kinds of changes should be considered. I think the original design intent (where it can be known) should be a guiding principle behind any considered change.

TBCC shouldn’t IMO be a one to one replica of TBC but it should be ‘in the spirit’ of it and respectful of its legacy - it should conform to the original design intentions for the game as much as feasibly possible. This isn’t a “#nochanges” position but it is a conservative adoption of the “#somechanges” position.

Edit: To be fair “I want it because I want it” is valid too, but it’s not testable or debatable.

5366

Yeah, let’s pick some change that nobody wants and nobody asked for and discuss where the line is. That would really help the discussion of dual spec that many people want and asked for. How about changing Nelfs into Undead and Trolls into humans? I’m against that. Hope that helps.

5367

I think “conservative” is probably the best word I’ve seen used to define the stance.

We aren’t…against change per se, we’re just a lot tougher to convince that it’s needed.

It’s a bit more complex than that, because we’re also taking in to account the product and what it’s “supposed” to be, I think it works.

Are there any changes you would be against that are possible?

5368

Are you claiming that it’s impossible for blizzard to change every Nelf avatar into an Undead avatar and every Troll avatar into a Human avatar? Seems that would be a simple change for blizzard to make. I would object to that. Hope that helps with your question.

5369

From a technical standpoint obviously it is possible.

I think you and I both know that’s never going to happen, though, so I think you know what I meant, and resorting to absurd examples like this obviously is kind of the point I was making.

Nobody is cheering the bravery of going out in front everyone to say “I am against them changing all Nelf Avatars to My Little Pony Character knockoffs!”. There’s pretty much no risk in committing to that, and the reason you’re playing it that safe is because if you pick something that could potentially happen, you risk being caught in the #nochanges trap.

5370

I mean If anything you’re proving Of all the Features that were added in dual spec is one of the very few that has always been good.

I mean yeah there’s lots of other changes around it yes And it was changed the way it works but that’s only because the classes were changed.

His and the talent system was changed dramatically obviously But Where in your comment are you really demonstrating that dual respect was a bad thing for the game?

5371

I think you and I both know blizzard isn’t going to change abilities that do nature damage into frost damage but somehow you thought that nonsense was valuable to the discussion.

1 Like
5372

I mean, they won’t. I obviously know that lol.

That was being used to make a different point though. You’re mixing up conversations.

On one hand I wanted to demonstrate how Blizzard could do completely absurd and nonsensical things to the game and as long as it didn’t affect him, he didn’t care, which makes him an unreliable candidate to discuss changes for the game in respects to all players.

On the other hand, I wanted to narrow down, at least slightly, what changes he would be against, to show that his idea for dual spec is completely personal and subjective, because somewhere in that noggin’, there is a change he wouldn’t be for that someone else would be, he just won’t say it because it hurts his argument of calling everyone else #nochanges as a catch all, and he’s come this far, there’s no turning back now!

1 Like
5373

A more feasible situation is where Blizzard may choose to implement a change that makes things more grindy and less convenient rather than less grindy and more convenient.

It’s entirely possible that the Bliz Devs have very different views on what makes a good game than the community do. Take the changes to the Arena points system as an example.

So, let’s say Blizzard were of the view that there was too much gold and it was trivializing respec costs, so they increased the cost to 100g. Is that a change you would support? I suspect not, because I think you have a tendency to support more convenience and flexibility rather than less. That forms some of the basis of how you assess the merits of a change (I suspect).

This is what I think Zipzo is driving at here - what heuristic are you using to determine “good” changes from “bad” changes.

Btw the scenario I raise is entirely plausible, the Devs have form - eg. reducing honor points accrual, imposing rating requirements on season 1 arena gear etc. None of which were popular.

5374

See here’s the thing It depends on your server right because I can tell you on my server Is when dulespeck was released.

I can tell you I saw a lot more healers and tanks including myself Because before then if I’m being honest the reason I never did it was well I’m not going to best all this time in effort to get a Gear set together and Glyphs.

Because we can’t forget those now can we Every single time I want to do something different Is when dulespeck came in I was ecstatic it’s like Hey I can try tanking finally.

And I had friends that’s a Hey I couldn’t try healing finally though were there people that didn’t yes obviously but again here’s the thing you can’t make.

Make the argument it’s dual specs fault that it didn’t end the tanking shortage you also have to look at OK what was taking like.

I mean let’s be honest here I can say in rather lichting I pugged ray to tank all the time and I didn’t do it after cataclysm I would take 5 man heroics and nothing higher.

For one simple reason Quite frank It’s a got unmanageable by your average player you really had to dedicate so much more time to doing anything else.

Oh yeah it was easy enough getting a gear set together for tanking but it’s completely different when you Is step into raids.

You compare what you have to deal with in Is a heroic in cataclysm which is still a good amount by the way I still hate stone core to this very day.

But think about what you had to manage and this is before we talk about LFR Is people were becoming more and more picky.

Because the mechanics were getting harder and harder to manage the game was becoming more difficult on top of that.

Is cataclysm was really the expansion where classes as a whole became much harder to play It was no longer a question of is this classfund how hard is it to do your best

Is at whatever So obviously people were becoming more impatient You wipe on a group oh Hey guess what you’re the tank in a Hug you got kicked.

And this didn’t get any better after mop Is cataclysm is a turning point where the game started to become more you have to use Is key by needs and macro.

Is to play your class affective It was the point where addons really started to become necessary not optional absolutely necessary.

And week oris on top of it That’s so much extra stuff you have to do even before you start playing the game.

So it’s not necessarily dual specs fault It’s the way the game evolved that’s not the features fault that is the way classes in the game’s design changed as a whole.

5375

Although I don’t agree with that at all I will Grant you this you do have at least one point #SomeChanges Could mean a million different things to a million different people.

By my standpoint Where the line is drawn is this does this make the game better Are you changing the raids no Are you changing the classes no Are you destroying the social aspect no Does it make the player’s lives better.

Have you looked at what’s the worst possible thing this change could do for the game What’s the good that comes of this change.

If the good is overall better than the potential bad Put it in that would be my definition.

1 Like
5376

I think that’s a good start at a heuristic.

It’s still a bit vague but you’re offering a testable position. We can start to ask things like “will dual spec impact on raids” for instance.

5377

I don’t think it’s needed or a good thing to have a one rule fits all to determine good from bad changes. Simple minds see the world simply and make simple rules to guide them through it. I think it’s logical to look at each change individually and make a determination. I don’t think most of those against dual spec have any heuristic. They’re against dual spec so they make up a “reason” then cobble together rationalizations for the changes that have already happened to fit that “reason.” Mostly people want to “win” the “debate” and that determines the arguments they use in any situation.

5378

You’re probably right there - And I’m pretty sure some of the people in support of it do. Just not the ones I’m currently addressing ;p

I take your point that you don’t think applying a heuristic is a good thing - I clearly disagree with you there. But you’re right that it’s not a requirement - you (anyone) can hold any view you like for whatever reasons you like, or no reason at all. It’s just not a position I can discuss or argue with in that case.

From a development pov I’d like to think the devs apply a heuristic and that they don’t simply implement changes on the outcome of a vote.

5379

Agreed Here’s the thing though and this is the really big question that needs to be asked.

And somebody else brought up a point and He doesn’t like me and thinks my spelling’s garbage however he did bring up a good point.

If we have Duel speck Technically that opens up another gold sake because think about it Does this very from class I will say yes it does.

However For example as Is protection palatin to a ret paladin I’m going to need different consumes.

And that’s another way you could look at buying your gold because if you have an ospect what you’re going to want to have consumed for that speck.

So instead of spending a 100 gold on respecting Is would that gold not be better used to buy consumers for your offspake.

Is gear pieces for your Off speck The other thing I’m going to say And this might sound like a little bit of a hot take.

Does it really matter Let’s pretend you’re in a semi hardcore guilt OK Let’s just pretend OK.

Let’s say we are having trouble on a boss And we do need a little bit more extra healing so if that person already has a healing set together.

It’s just from off things and things hes been collecting What’s the matter if a shadow priest.

Does switch Is too healing for that fight I don’t think it would be a thing at least a commonplace however.

Why is that a bad thing Is why is it a bad thing that if you’re ADP S and healing class.

If you have the ability Is why is that a bad thing that you’re able to help your Guild progress.

If the need arises Now I’m not making the argument it would be a common practice on that arguing it would be required.

That’s not the point that I’m trying to make my point I’m asking why is that a bad thing?

Is if I’m a protection paladin for example Well I’m not having really any luck finding a group and I say oh Hey they need a healer.

I have some healing pieces And I just want to get my heroic daily done Why is it a bad thing that I can switch.

To heels Is to get my heroic daily done why are any of these things bad The heroic is still hard You still have to do it you still have to click that gear set.

You still have to buy those consumes What I’m saying is Is we’re removing the annoying part

Enterian force that you’re still going to need a farm gold The only difference is instead of you spending it on respecting and how is respecting and having to buy consumes.

You’ll only have to buy consumes and obviously if people don’t have to drop a 100 gold on that every single time.

Is there more likely to play Is those rolls more I mean I can tell you I have an off healing set I do.

I’ve just been collecting it but it’s not something I put a lot of thought into I can also tell you trying to find groups for mag/gurrls.

Just because of my time zone is really tough And trying to get in to one of those runs as a tank isn’t always easy especially when you haven’t done it a lot.

But I’m more likely to find a group as heels If I had dual spack I would always have Is my main tank speck.

But I could have an off heel or ret What I’m saying is Why is it a bad thing that we give players a little bit more choice.

I mean realistically Is are there going to be players that are going to still have to juggle some things well yeah they’re just not jungling as much.

Is and for the pure DPS classes that don’t really well necessarily have a is necessarily have a need to switch all the time.

They’ve got their PVP spec and they’ve got their PVE spec.

Why are any of these things bad?

That’s my question to you

5380

I think you mean deflecting away to avoid the point.

what a non answer.

sounds about right.

original design referring not to the literal blueprint or the code itself, by the style and methodology for getting there.
or as another game used for their manta “We want you to FEEL like spider man”

Any examples that demonstrate the spirit of TBC design that for sure differs from classic and wrath?

2 Likes