You’ve spent all this time and effort yet still been unable to give one, single, tiny example of how it might negatively impact gameplay.
Dual spec has existed longer than it hasn’t, surely you can come up with something.
Examples have been given. It’s not our fault you ignore them.
Exactly. Plenty of examples covering plenty of bases.
And the dude is entitled enough to think he doesn’t have to commit to an explanation of how it might be implemented in TBC (not WoTLK - the game we’re talking about is TBC) on the sole basis that he thinks the word “implementation” is an offensively large word.
He seems to think that lifting mechanics ‘as is’ from a different version of the game and plugging it into TBC cannot possibly have an impact on game balance - to such a degree that he claims the simple act of asking the question “what might happen if” is tantamount to heresy and “being detatched from reality”. Ironic, It’s a video game - none of it is real and it all comes from peoples imagination, even his beloved WoTLK dual spec and his invented list of “Benefits”.
Additionally, after going on and on about us being “vague” and “being detatched from reality” he puts forward these unsubstantiated “benefits” up as “evidence” of why we supposedly need a WoTLK dual spec:
He forgot to add other unsubstantiated benefits too like:
- Will remove acne
- Will make you more attractive
- Will make your teeth whiter and brighter
- Will feed the world and bring a global end to war
The fact is very few of the people here demanding dual spec have committed to giving an example of how they see the feature being implemented into TBC, nor have they given any consideration at all to any possible game play implications.
They’re whole argument rests on unsubstantiated assertions and attacking doubters as spoilers and haters intent on ruining their fun. What about our fun? Those of us who came back to play TBC (not wrath) - the non boosters who actually like the game? No, the retail player who rolled a Draeni to check out classic wants to fix our game for us. How kind …
Stating that the change will have no negative impacts while then shutting down any attempt to think about what might happen if the feature is implemented is essentially denial.
They are the ones proposing a change to a fundamental mechanic of the game - not us, they need to think through what they’re asking for and defend why they needed it and why it won’t stuff around with existing game balance - it’s their suggestion not ours. Forcing the burden of proof onto those of us doubting their position is intellectually dishonest. They’re making a stack load of claims, they need to convincingly quantify what they’re asking for and demonstrate the truth of their claims. People doubting them do not have to do this for them. It’s on the person making the proposal.
Yeah, because “what if” is a question you don’t bother asking unless it fits what you want. You’re happy to suggest what might happen if dual spec is implemented when it’s positive - without a shred of evidence - but brush it off as vague fantasy when someone presents a potential problem.
We ask what if it goes wrong and not just assume it will go right, because the people asking for the change don’t think it’s an important question.
You apply one rule for you and another rule for us - you don’t seem to think you need to quantify your benefits, claiming them as “Benefits” is enough - no qualification or evidence required. But we are required to prove and define potential problems in terms of real world specific examples and provable outcomes or else we’re living in “fantasy land” and being vague.
YOU are proposing the change - it’s your proposal to defend not mine.
Here’s another whatif - what if the developers implemented changes without ever asking the question “what might happen to game balance if we do this change”?
I am absolutely relieved that you have no professional involvement in the development of this game.
I’m not at all convinced by the #holdmybeerwhileIfixyourgame agenda. Go back to retail or wait your turn for WoTLK. You’re assistance in fixing the game is not required.
3 Likes
I love how much effort you put into avoiding answering a question.
You have yet to give one single reason how it would impact it you just expect us to believe you on faith.
Come on man, you’re articulate enough to avoid being called an idiot so just answer the question, stop avoiding it.
What is wrong with you?
Oh, i get it, you don’t have any counter-arguments so you’re throwing a tantrum.
Can you actually argue against a single one of my points without appealing to emotion?
Ah, never mind, you did cross the line into idiocy.
This is the 3rd time you’ve been asked, give me one example of how forcing a player to a class trainer to respec brings you more enjoyment in the game.
Since it is 100% optional you have the choice not to participate so it has 0 impact on you, how does someone else taking advantage of it actively cause you to enjoy the game less? How does someone you aren’t even in a group with using a class trainer to respec bring you enjoyment?
So stupid.
Answer the question dude.
Answer it.
Stop avoiding it and just answer the questions you’re asked.
I think you’ve spent too much time on reddit.
I didn’t propose anything all I did was ask you to provide evidence for the assertions you made. Something you have been incapable of doing.
Whether you are just a troll, disingenuous, stupid or don’t speak english as a first language you still are responsible for providing support when you make assertions like you have.
Your feelings, no matter how large out of control, don’t trump evidence.
Can you actually make an argument against any of them?
Do you know what the word tangible means?
-
It increases player choice. 2 choices > 1 choice. I mean this is just self evident and you should know that moving from 1 choice to 2 choices is an Increase.
-
This follows the logic from step 1. Increase in player choice leads to increase in availability. You see more people willing to fill in tank/healer roles.
-
people who otherwise wouldn’t play additional specs might now feel more comfortable. I mean I know 100% this happens because it happened to me with dual spec and that’s the problem when someone like you makes such bold assertions, when there is a single counter-point you get proven wrong.
-
It is optional. What is hard to understand about this? This isn’t made up fantasyland BS like you want all us to feel this is a real world option. You can activate your dual spec or you don’t.
It’s like you have a large vocabulary but I have the feeling you don’t have a large comprehension of your vocabulary.
You are actively disproving yourself in your comments but you completely lack the awareness to recognize it.
Your feelings are not an example.
So it’s my feeling that people will find the easiest way to cheese content? Not like people have been doing cheesy strats all the time, like that lose to win strat some alliance used with their instant que times.
1 Like
Welcome to my TED talk…good luck reading all this 
Fundamentally, I disagree that changing the “meta” is a bad thing. This is already extremely dated and solved content, and the reason people are returning to “classic” anyway is because they want to either re-experience the content (maybe from different roles this time than they did previously), or see what they missed for the first time. It isn’t because they’re looking for a challenge. The “meta” today already is different than it was during “phase 1” of TBC, so the experience is already different in that regard.
This whole argument boils down to “Bring the Player” vs. “Bring the Class”
In your case, you seem to argue for “Bring the Class” such that a raid roster strictly follows the existing meta (such as one Enh Shaman for Melee/Tanks, one Ret Pally for Crusader and blessing, one Shadow Priest for debuff/healer group, etc). I personally don’t care to preserve that.
Alternatively, in your own example, you shift every so slightly more to the “Bring the Player” philosophy with dual-specs you can actually BREAK some of that meta by allowing for more shadow priests if any of them have a healing offspec, or more ret pally’s if any of them have reasonable prot or holy gear, or more enhancement shamans if one is flexible to swap to range.
Frankly put, the content is already “too solved” that optimizing the meta around dual-specs simply won’t ever be required to all but possibly the world-first guilds (which are already doing it anyway).
Instead, it’ll increase value in many hybrid classes when it comes to rostering, or allow others switch between PvP and dungeons more regularly.
Final few comments:
-
Respecing already exists in the game, and thanks to addons, you can streamline that process down to take less than 10 seconds to accomplish with just a few mouse clicks, yet meta still doesn’t account for this and require people to optimize their specs for individual encounters today. Why not? I think it’s not worth the time/hassle because the content is so old and solved already.
-
If you’re so worried about the meta with willy-nilly respecing, simply require the player to be at the trainer to swap specs instead of arbitrarily like the WotLK version allows. Guilds would have to weight the time it takes to hearth, walk to trainer, then get a summon back to the entrance then boss.
-
If the fear is the loss of a gold sink (or to “make talent choices matter”), that would hold more water if people didn’t get crucified for not selecting one of the “meta” builds for their class already. Your choices already don’t matter – everyone simply looks up the optimized spec for their role. People aren’t respec’ing randomly, they’re doing it because they want to engage in different areas of the expansion. Given this is our 2nd time through it, why do we care at this point?
1 Like
Regarding 2 & 3, I would be interested to see a real poll asking people to choose between:
- seamless, on-the-fly swapping for 50g every time (or with present decay rates)
-
no-frills respecs at the trainer for 0gtalent point refund for 0g at the trainer
Guessing it would be laughably one-sided in favor of #2
1 Like
Hmm…ok.
- Let player buy a respec skill from trainer (whatever cost you want to keep it as a gold sink overall on the average)
- Force the player to still go to a trainer to respec, instead of WotLK-style anywhere out of combat to preserve whatever “meta” people are so strangely worried about disturbing for some reason
- Have the UI/game save your hot bars and talents, and provide the built-in equipment manager, instead of relying on addons
Other than that, you’re simply saving someone who wants to respec frequently the penalty and hassle of doing so. Addons already exist to streamline it similarly to the WotLK method, you just have to pay at a trainer, so it’s kind of a moot point since it otherwise ALREADY EXISTS today.
The only legit arguments left are “It’s a gold sink!” and “It wasn’t in TBC it shouldn’t be in classic” and to that, I say…that’s like, your opinion. This already hasn’t been the exact same experience as it was for me back then anyway – that specific QoL feature being added would be fine with me.
After experiencing “exploited” meta-items and World Buffs in Classic, pay-for mount, a new breath-takingly bad hearthing effect, dungeon grinding to level as to preserve quests for rep in TBC, bursting HKM in <20s to cheese the fight, raids chaining cubes on mag to increase damage taken for faster kills, etc, I already don’t feel like the experience mirrors what it did before. But I also have decided I don’t care, I’m still enjoying the ride and it is still nostalgic for me.
Adding dual-specs will just allow me engage more rapidly when I have time to play vs. waiting around because I plan to arena/raid as a particular spec tonight and don’t want to swap back and forth a few times in the same day.
2 Likes
Depends what you mean by “no-frills” because I want it to save hot bars and talents. Yes, I’m already doing this with addons, but why not have it built in smooth. I don’t need/want on-the-fly respecing – I want to be able to decide to dungeon as resto for an hour or two before raiding as DPS without having to pay 100g to do so.
EDIT: To be clear, I’m perfectly fine with running back to the trainer each time to somewhat “preserve the TBC experience.”
Yeah, I should’ve said “refund talent points”.
There is an addon that saves hotbar setup and talent builds. You just have to pick which prepared build you want to use after reseting talents at the trainer.
What you want already exists, it just costs 50g per at max cost and you have to go to the trainer.
And changing the meta for a game that’s meant to be a remake of a 15 year old game is a big deal. It’s a massive change and people who came here to play tbc will be upset by it.
I accept that - and you raise some solid arguments on the whole.
My position is that if Blizzard are to renovate the TBC game to be in line with “bring the player” they need to do more than just implement dual spec. They need to redesign a lot of abilities for a lot of classes. One example may be giving Druids a spammable rez and giving all or most classes a reliable and baseline interrupt mechanic.
Essentially this then boils down to the authenticity of the TBC experience (as you encapsulated here):
But you are also correct that this aspect - the authenticity of the experience - is already compromised.
So, where I differ with you is that some implementations of dual spec are a bridge too far - they move the TBC experience too far away from it’s original model (based around “bring the class”) and thus disconnect us too much from an experience we can connect to the original.
Specifically any implementation which is not locked by instance lockout would go too far away from the original design intent of this iteration of the game for it to maintain a status as a "classic’ representation of the game.
It then becomes a slippery slope where features from Wrath and other expansion can be transposed onto TBC simply because we don’t agree with the design imperatives of the original game. So, why then have a TBC classic, lets get through it to the good bit - Wrath…
Why have it? Because to many fans TBC, not Wrath, was the better iteration of the game and the better game philosophy. For many of us the “bring the class model” added a layer of strategic depth to raid composition that we enjoyed. There’s plenty of iterations of the game that have a “bring the player” model to come. But implementing such a divergent game ethos to TBC is not in the spirit of this iteration of the game.
#somechanges was a qualified position - Blizzard qualified that changes would only be made if they were in the spirit of the original game. This is admittedly vague, but I take that to mean they will not be diverting from the core game ethos.
In my view a Dual specialization feature which allows for talent switching within a given lockout would break that aim and open the door for a swathe of changes to the core game that make it not much like the original at all.
I think a core problem we are having is that the community is split: Many people came to TBC because they saw it as a signal from Blizzard that there would be a classic release of later expansions. As a result many people joining TBC are players hoping and waiting for their preferred edition - WoTLK. But many players came to TBC because TBC was their favourite edition of the game.
I see a lot of the requests for changes to be driven by the first group - those who see TBC classic as a stepping stone to WoTLK classic. And many who are resistant to change are in the latter group - people who came to TBC classic because they loved TBC.
I strongly feel that the people who prefer the WoTLK model need to sit tight and wait their turn, allow those that preferred the TBC model to have their brief period of nostalgia and fun. Your time will come.
1 Like
And this.
People arguing for dual spec talk about others being able to choose not to use it. But why would you choose to disadvantage yourself over other players?
But on the flipside - if convenience is all people want and 50g isn’t the problem, why not just use addons to seamlessly switch hotbars and gear? There’s plenty of addons available that make the game more convenient (including switching spec and role. Heck, we have an API to implement our own if we want. With addons you can have that freedom of choice without shafting the core game for all those who don’t want that choice made for them.
1 Like
The fact that you have yet to respond to the many examples I already gave doesn’t prove that such examples were never given. They’re drowned out now by your attempts to gaslight but if people are dedicated enough they can dig out the examples I’ve given. I can’t be bothered writing them up repeatedly only to have you gaslight again.
There’s not a shred of intellectual honesty in your responses, nor Delmicus’, nor Kumasama’s. It’s just a cesspool of petition and dirty debating tricks.
1 Like
You don’t. The point isn’t even worth addressing due to its inanity.
How is he “gaslighting” you exactly?
And don’t give me the dictionary definition, I’m well aware of what “gaslighting” is. I just want to know how it’s applicable here.
So, by saying this you do think it’s good for the game.
…but only in Wrath?
Let’s leave to the wayside how this dismantles just about everything you’ve said so far. Please tell me why, on what principle, dual-spec is good for Wrath but bad for TBC.
By repeatedly claiming that what has happened hasn’t happened in an effort to have me and others question the reality of it - look it up. Then drowning the forums with this pap so as to drown out the actual facts.
Common tactics of the tiresome trio:
-
Doxing: Digging up year old warcraftlogs data to attempt to embarrass, discredit, and dredge up “dirt” on opponents. Addmittedly this is what you think you were doing but failed to appreciate it’s a fantasy character and I don’t actually care about its “reputation”.
-
Misrepresenting: by quoting part of a sentence and creating a fabricated narrative from it that was never claimed.
-
Gaslighting: Repeatedly misrepresenting what did happen and questioning the sanity of opponents or their groundedness in reality. Claiming that what was said wasn’t said or otherwise.
There’s been a load of other dirty tricks you and your partners employ routinely. One thing you fail to do is adequately elucidate and defend your position.
Can’t blame you - the long term culture of the wow forums is to petition for buffs and then subject any objectors to the above mentioned tactics. You’re just conforming to the dominant culture of the forum.
For the record, I’m not offended, I think it just indicates the weakness of your argument that you feel the need to deploy such tricks.
1 Like
But you still think Dual Spec is a good thing…
…as long as it’s in Wrath.
Please explain why.
Because Wrath was designed with dual spec in mind. Classes were redesigned so that niche necessary abilities like interrupts were made baseline and spread across more classes. This was articulated by Ghostcrawler. When outlining the shift to the “bring the player not the class” model.
Of course this has already been pointed out over and over. You just refuse to acknowledge the point over and over.
Also, pet vs pet duals were fine in MOP so why not add them to TBC?
Because ultimately TBC is meant to remind people of TBC not wrath or some other wow variant.
TBC classic is at risk of becoming a WoTLK classic beta if you get everything you want with an extended prepatch phase.