Paid, no wasn’t in tbc, level boosts through recruit a friend were however and the design intent was to get friends to join their friends in wow tbc. According to what blizzard said the design intent of the boost was the same. Also the boost is far less abusabke compared to what recruit a friend did in terms of getting multiple lvl 70s, no teleporting, no mount with it, exc.
There was paid mounts in tbc, through the card game.
The design intent of seals, BG que times, exc wasn’t to make people go a specific faction for being able to play the game. The changes made to those were within the intended game design goals of the origional game. I’m not saying I like all the changes made but the intended game design goals of tbc were respected in these changes, as well as the profession changes.
The arena changes was a bad change, but it’s design intent was to help keep arena gear exclusive, as it was back in tbc. The intent of the design was in line, still didn’t make it a good change though.
Dual spec however goes directly against the intended design goals from origi9nal tbc, as in we have a direct quote proving this, it’s not speculation.
Thank you, Ziryus. That was my point exactly, that escaped, most likely willfully, the “no changes” crowd that rail against a quality of life change that would do naught but benefit the community as a whole and bring back players. At this point I think they take pleasure in riding this ship all the way to the bottom.
No, I’m not going to make hard determinations on what goes through people’s mind when they write what they write. I can only guess, but I’d never hitch my horse to it.
When he says “big” he could very-well mean it was a huge undertaking for his team to even put into the game programming-wise. It could also mean he was saying Dual Spec had a lot of potential. I think that’s what he was saying because the second sentences follows that up by saying it will “probably” change the game in ways he couldn’t fathom.
My best guess is that GC was offering his own speculative discourse to a new addition to the game which, at that point in time, had no data to draw from to even begin to assert how it would change the game.
“The new system makes this a much more logical process, saving on time and cost and allowing players to easily move from one aspect of the game to another.”
Why do you think it’s better for the current state of the game to have a more illogical process, that wastes time and gold and hinders players’ ability to easily move from one aspect of the game to another?
How does a person paying 200 gold in respecs every week make the game better? Why does switching between pvp and pve specs need to be penalized with the respec cost.
Does blizz not want people swapping between content? Pvp participation has been really low and continues to fall. I have a feeling you’re a person that doesn’t really participate in pvp so you’re not affected by this problem.
Honestly, I’m gonna abandon ship from that rabbit hole.
I have literally no idea what he’s trying to get at by picking at the wording.
Neither are we, but words are used to communicate ideas, and the idea that I get from his words are that the team looked at dual spec as a pretty significant change that would affect the game in a lot of ways.
He was correct, no matter what my analysis of his words are.
You spending so much time arguing this…line of thinking, or whatever the heck it is, is pointless because the ultimate point that ends up being made is that you’d be trying to say that dual spec was not a major/significant/big change for the purpose of supplementing your assertion that adding it doesn’t change anything or affect anything and thus there’s no reason to hesitate in adding it.
I like the current process. I don’t think it’s illogical or wastes time/gold. I don’t view it as a penalty and when I PvP’d I had no problem respeccing to do so. I don’t PvP because I’m bad at it and it’s not fun, not because of the respec fee.