Personally I have a preference for game devs to make game dev decisions and not arm chair casual MMO players.
I also make the assumption that if you are coming to a “classic” version of a game you want it to at least approximate the original … I don’t fully understand the masochistic impulse to play a game with what you consider fundamental game flaws and then spend your hours campaigning to renovate it. I personally wouldn’t play the game if I felt that way. Plenty of other games out there.
Less people rolling specialised alts. Faster progress for more people on released content. I’m willing to bet you’re wrong.
Edit: Faster progress would depend on the implementation of Dual spec. Whether or not you could switch talents and or specs on the fly in a single lockout.
Okay mr hotshot software engineer. You know what implementation means right?
You realise there are different ways to implement a thing.
You keep treating my words as meaningless and then saying I’m not making a point. Essentially you are wilfully not listening to the point.
Example of possible implementations,
Implementation 1) You can switch specialisation only for a fresh lockout of instanced content and only once.
Implementation 2) You can switch specialisation and talents on the fly within the same lockout.
Now, you get that both of these options are different ways of delivering a dual spec mechanic yes? They are called implementations.
You also understand that they both have different game play implications yes? Not that hard to understand. So, you can see that how a dual spec is implemented is important to the discussion of why we should or shouldn’t have it?
Really you guys are literally stonewalling anything close to a discussion by wilfully ignoring the actual meaning of what anyone who challenges you say. Laughably you then pass it off as lacking substance.
Implementation is a word with a meaning - it is important to the discussion. Flicking any old implementation of dual spec into the game can have a variety of impacts depending on the implementation. We can’t discuss those impacts without defining the implementation. You keep asking me to prove one negative impact categorically from any and all implementations of dual spec - I can’t because each implementation has different potential impacts. I earlier gave some examples for one specific implementation, that’s all you get. You’ve evaded having to actually build and quantify your own proposition long enough.
Practice what you preach and be specific about what you want and why you want it and quantify and defend that with evidence. Use your alleged experienced software engineer experience to quantify what it is you’re asking for …
You want the change you defend it - I’m not asking for anything so I have nothing to defend…
Make sure you quote the dictionary or some other convenient source online to prove you really know your stuff!
No, he has acknowledge the actual meaning. That mean is: you feel this way. That’s all there is. You feel the way that you feel. And that’s all there is.
Remember to quote the dictionary. I heard that’ll prove anything. People will read what a word means and then conclude that you’re obviously the person who knows how to use words…good.
Hohh, sooo much irony here. So much!!
Riger, you are the master of using reams and reams of text to try to explain yourself and then you ask everyone else to be specific?
So, on the one hand you’re claiming it’s an old game and we shouldn’t be so hung up about the content being trivialised and then on the other you’re getting hung up about an old game being too hard or frustrating and begging to change it … I see.
I use lots of words because you seem to need every base covered.
You asked me before what “faster and easier” meant - so I spent a paragraph explaining it.
Stop passing your cheap debating stunts off as mine - I have been everything you’ve asked me to be and more and you have exploited it. When I am concise you say I lack detail, when detailed you claim I’m wordy and obfuscating the point.
YOU are asking for the change, not me YOU NEED TO BE CLEAR about WHAT YOU WANT not me.
It helps explain the meaning of words to people who claim not to understand them, yes. That’s actually the function of a dictionary.
You and your pals claimed my words had no meaning - I provided a source for the meaning of the word in question and what it meant. I couldn’t go further to give you what you ask for. But ultimately you’re not arguing in good faith, everything you ask for is a trick and a herring to get your own way.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re saying that over the long haul, dual-spec will hasten the rate at which players stop logging in by accelerating their progress in-game?
Yup, it’s why I enjoy engaging with you. I know Delimicus cut ties, but he didn’t at least acknowledge that–at the very least–your posts make you come across as educated even if not highly intelligent.
That’s basically me. I’ve a college degree and I’m as dumb as a sack of bricks.
And I read every paragraph, believe me. But I only quote separate parts because I get the main idea. Too much fluff makes you appear pretentious.
I mean, I read what you’ve read. Least you could do is acknowledge the fact that I’ve issued that “debate” isn’t what’s going on. It might if you bring anything more than feelings to the table…
Didn’t I already do this?
I mean, you know I already did this…
Are you just responding to me as a roundabout means of artificially bumping a post you’re secretly in favor for?
Essentially the faster you can reach your content and gear goals the sooner it will be when you get bored and log in less frequently.
This is not necessarily a problem, if the content release cycle is fast enough. But it’s a problem I don’t think Blizzard need to create for themselves.
Playing origional halo on its hardest difficulty was frustrating (I’m not great at first person shooters) but when I finally beat it I felt like I accomplished something and was happy about it and is part of what made the game fun.
Difficulties and inconveniences are part of what can make a game fun, by overcomi g those obstacles.
For example, the gold costs in the game encourages me to do quests, this let’s me see content I might otherwise not be doing and it let’s me see the lore, be immersed in the world, exc.
The gold cost also encourages me to interact with the world economy to make gold.
The difficulty of content encourages me to play the game with others even though I know there is content I can solo. Heck, I did the helfire elite quests multiple times on my hunter because it was hard for people and they asked for help. The difficulty of those quests were inconvenient to the people doing them and it encouraged them to talk to others, ask for help, and make friends.
You’re not playing skyrim, this isn’t a game you can turn baby mode on at a moments notice because something is difficult or inconvenient. Heck one of my playthroughs of skyrim I got stuck fighting a dragon outside a cave and stuck fighting 2 trolls inside the cave and I had no healing left with about 10% hp. I had one hell of a time getting out of that because I played it on ledgendary and refused to turn the difficulty down. But it felt good to have escaped the dragon using trees for cover from the breath attack, running until I got out of combat with the dragon, and it was fun.
Inconvenience and difficulty make success that much more fun.
That’s actually the first thing you’ve asked that is genuinely worthy of a serious answer.
The answer - I don’t know.
I am provisionally opposed to Dual spec in TBC but am open to being convinced. There are some ways of implementing it that I think are very damaging to the game and other ways which are much less so and which I’m more open to discussing.
How open I am to dual spec in TBC depends on the implementation being proposed. I’m sure there are ways of implementing it that I haven’t thought of too, I’d be open to discussion there as well.
But if you ask me if I think TBC should have Dual spec without spelling out the limits that should be put on it then my answer is no - we shouldn’t, because it could potentially be very damaging depending on the implementation.
So it’s a bit like the difference between asking me for a blank cheque versus asking me for five bucks. I don’t want to give you either but I may concede to five bucks if the need is great enough but there’s no way you’re getting a blank cheque.
This is why you need to be specific - in order to discuss a proposal rationally and in a way that isn’t tribalistic you need to spell out exactly what it is you’re proposing. I don’t, I’m all for status quo.
You need to present something and argue the detail in order to get people who don’t already agree with you to consider it.
The cleanest easiest compromise in my view is the lowering of respec costs. Unless someone comes up with a compelling implementation.
