Respeccing isn’t that bad. There are mods that remember your action bars based on your talents and the cost to respec and go back is just a day of Dailies right now. When Netherwing and Sunwell dailies are up We’ll wont be able to do all of them since they capped it 25.
1 Like
It’s not gatekeeping, if you don’t like a game that’s not a bad thing, there are plenty of other options.
If you like cake that’s fine, but stop demanding the pie be turned into a cake because you don’t like pie.
1 Like
It is, since the game is neither static nor resistant to changes and improvements.
This analogy doesn’t improve by repeating it, since no one is taking away your cake.
It’s a classic game, a recreation if an older game. Which means the design intents and goals of the origional needs to be respected and we know what the design goals and intents of the origional devs were toward dual spec.
The problem is its not a cake, it’s a pie and YOU are trying to make it into a cake.
They don’t really.
Patrick Dawson: “No changes” being our guiding principle for WoW Classic made it very easy to make decisions on it. We just went to the reference client and went to that. But one thing we learned as we went through the release of the content in Classic is that [no changes] may not always be in the best interest of the players. Putting back in things like spell batching made the game feel a little less crisp. It was authentic, but it’s not what modern players want. The community today is so different from what the community was back in 2007 that it had us take a different philosophy with Burning Crusad e, where we actually started to allow ourselves to make some changes that were in the best interests of the players that will continue to develop alongside the community.
https://screenrant.com/wow-burning-crusade-classic-holly-longdale-patrick-dawson/
With “no changes” discarded, whatever “respect” for the original design, intent, and goals is diminished as well. If a goal contradicts a change that is in the best interest of the players, that goal will not be entirely respected, if it is respected at all.
This was a known fact in February, months before TBCC even launched.
No one is taking away what is, you’re just mad someone isn’t buying the same dessert as you from the same restaurant at a different table. Bad analogy is bad, stop using it.
All you get with dual specs is dual specs. You dont get population increases, more pug tanks, more arena partners etc.
The problem is you see some changes and think it means all changes.
If you add things that go directly against the design goals and intents of tbc then is this really tbcc or a mash of tbc, wotlk, and w/e other endlessly all changes get put in?
Again stop trying to turn the pie into a cake and then claim its still a pie. There are fundamental things you cannot change about a pie without making it no longer a pie.
No, you didn’t. Nothing you say is clear. It’s the opposite of that, in fact. Everything you say is long-winded, lengthy. So much so that you inevitably contradict it a few posts later by saying something else wordy and without real substance.
Absolutely. That’s all it does.
More dishonest bs that we’ve showed is dishonest bs. More misininormation.
You are a liar.
It’s not TBC. It’s TBC Classic with #SomeChanges.
No, because #SomeChanges was advertised.
You are a liar.
This is a lie.
Another lie.
Yet you said this:
So you contradict yourself again. You say the devs aren’t perfect when they change the game and add dual spec down the road but you say the devs were absolutely correct when they didn’t put it in the game in the first place.
More goldfish memory. You can’t even remember what you’ve said previous to any post you make.
No, you have amnesia. As I clearly demonstrated above.
This is a lie. His comment doesn’t say anything even remotely close to that.
Yup, and they made changes.
None of those changes were features directly imported from other (and not the latest) expansion.
Dual spec was also removed in favor of something else, but okay let’s gloss over that fact.
Oh, oh, don’t worry guys, I got this.
…puts you in direct contradiction with yourself.
Embarrassing for you…
And…yet again, very embarrassing.
You’re trying to be right on two completely contradictory fronts at the same time. You want to be correct about Ghostcrawler not alluding to dual spec, but also want to be right about retail-spec being an expansion (and therefore comparable) to dual spec.
#makeupyourmindZiryus
1 Like
The paid level boost wasn’t a feature from another expansion?
Paid mounts?
Same faction bg’s (aka mercenary mode)?
Paladin seals?
New arena rating system with teams starting at 0 instead of 1500?
Some of these changes have had a far greater impact on the classic tbc experience than dual spec would.
But letting pvp and pve players swap between content without paying their 50g every time is where we need to draw the line. We wouldn’t want more people to participate in pvp. /s
…and is to this day one of the biggest mistakes they’ve made.
It’s also a one-time use per account, which means it only truly repeatedly benefits the worst category of accounts (bots).
This definitively does not effect the gameplay.
This does not affect gameplay.
Also a massively unpopular change that is up there as one of the worst mistakes they’ve made.
The number of people who would use it for that purpose is insignificantly small.
Most people only want dual spec so they don’t have to farm.
Sorry buddy, get out there and start killin’.
You are using the same reasoning ghost crawler said no dual spec was coming to tbc back in the day.
Paraphrasing the old post: “Yea it sucks to pay 50 gold and reset up your bars every time you want to swap from pve to pvp, but it doesn’t affect most people so who cares”
Not like tbc pvp participation is at a ridiculously low level right now. /s
…which is only your opinion and has no bearing on reality.
…which is irrelevant because it wasn’t in the original game.
Good! Neither does Dual Spec.
Again, neither does Dual Spec.
citation needed
“Just play how I want you to play. Spend your time grinding when you could be having fun with your friends.”
1 Like
This is from Blizzard during Ulduar (3.1) PTR when dual spec was about to get added for testing:
Dual spec is a big, new feature for us. It will probably change the game in ways nobody (ourselves included) can predict. As such, we want to be careful. However we also want to be able to generate a lot of feedback on it. That is one reason we announced the feature with as much detail as we could. You can also expect to see it on the PTR for a reasonable amount of time.
(can’t post links, google this and find the mmo-champion result for source)
It’s a major change, there’s no question.
2 Likes
This being the primary emphasized part of the quote.
Listen, if you boot up Super Mario for NES and I say:
“Move from left to right”
And your response is…
“Why do I have to play it the way you want me to play?”
You’re being intentionally obtuse.
I’m not “telling you how to play” by giving you basic gameplay advice that adheres to basic functionality of how you actually achieve anything in the game.
Nope, never even implied this. Don’t straw man me to argue a point I’m not making.
Yes. As announced, TBCC will be changed and deviated from original TBC, hence the avoidance of “no changes”, references to modern audience wants/needs, etc. Blizzard themselves gets to tell us what is and isn’t TBCC. I don’t get how you fail to grasp this very basic concept. TBCC is whatever Blizzard says is TBCC and offers us under that name.
We already have WotLK and later changes… what are you talking about?
As the “what makes a sandwich” debate in law prominently informs us: what we think ought to be and what the definition actually is rarely create a perfect circle of overlap, if they touch at all.
Gawd, you guys are sooo dishonest. You can’t help but lie, lie, lie.
He wasn’t wrong, though. It did change the game.
It changed the game enough that the contrast between not having it and having it makes you want it back.
If it was an insignificant change, then you naturally wouldn’t care about not having it.
1 Like