Oh goodness, I had almost forgotten why I started ignoring your posts.
1 Like
One is quantitatively bad for the majority of players, the other is not. Hence having a discussion about the merits of the changes, not about feelings.
Seal of Blood is a good example. Itās not strictly speaking within what the original devs designed.
The design intent was clearly that both factions would have differentiation but that both of the different abilities would be equally balanced. That didnāt happen. The implementation failed and it was unbalanced - severely.
You could argue that the TBC classic devs were acting within the original intent by balancing it but they were also clearly acting against the design intent by removing the faction differentiation.
In my view this is a clear case where the benefits of breaking the original developers intent was justified in order to avoid the near game breaking imbalance it would have caused to implement it as it was. So, this supports your claim. There have been moved away from the original design intent.
So youāre example is a good one - it does counter the original design intent. But I would argue that it does so for good substantial reasons.
And thatās where I stand on Dual Spec at the moment. It clearly counters the original design intentions. So, are there good enough reasons for doing so in this case? I donāt think so. That is actually the point of the discussion.
The most substantial argument Iāve had for it is that it worked well Wrath. But I donāt think it did. In fact I consider Wrath road kill - so that whole argument is unconvincing to me. Iām not in this game waiting impatiently for Wrath classic. In fact Iām out the door as soon as the prepatch for it drops.
1 Like
Hereās an exercise for you which you almost certainly wonāt follow through with:
Provide a list of reasons why people want the changes (in your words)
Provide the reasons why these changes are bad that do not include #nomorechanges, or, faithful recreation, or feelings about authenticity.
I think youāre a thoughtful person, so Iād be interested on what youāve absorbed from this thread.
So you have a bad memory. I never forgot what I think of you. Though if you stop posting in a few weeks Iāll forget your name and every thing you posted because you mean nothing to me.
That is interesting. Itās neither right nor wrong but interesting.
Theoretically it suggests any optional QoL feature from Retail would make TBCC objectively better.
You say that it is bad. I disagree with that.
As I just commented, it also suggests any optional QoL feature from Retail would make the game better.
If your argument is that any change which garners support from at least 51% of the population should be introduced then that is also fair.
Iāve done that several times in this thread accross my many posts. If you would be a thoughtful person and read the thread, you would know what my stance is.
Fundamentally, Iāve never said the changes are ābadā. Iāve just said that theyāre not āgoodā, and many of the arguments raised are false equivalence (such as the multiboxing saga).
There is no clear case that leaving it as the original devs intended would have created near game breaking imbalance. I think it would have had a minor effect.
Can you give me a post number? Iām not going through 2200 posts 
Iāve only been commenting for the past 400 or so, so itās not big a task as you think!
But my argument had changed and developed over the thread because Iām not so stubborn to be wilfully ignorant to new information or points of view. Plus, the focus of the thread has shifted several times. Fundamentally:
It created serious imbalance at the time and I think you can easily extrapolate that this would have been amplified in the minimax culture that formed in Classic vanilla. Thatās a reasonable assumption I think the current Devs made.
I never said every retail feature was bad, for example the retail LFG Tool(not LFD/LFR) is exceptionally good and makes the one they added in TBC Classic look that much more stupid in comparison.
And sure personal loot as an optional feature(it was originally only forced for LFD/LFR) would be fine. I could certainly see people taking advantage of that in things like dungeons that have highly desired trinkets.
I donāt believe that was the case. You canāt know it did since blizzard didnāt release their data. At most you can guess based on your experience on the few servers you played on which was a tiny fraction of the number of servers. It didnāt create an imbalance on the servers I played on.
Yet even if your guess was correct the original devs took no action at the time. Either their data didnāt show that extreme imbalance or their intention for the game took priority on making any change to fix the imbalance. Youāre all so big on the original devs intention when it suits you and ignore it when it doesnāt suit you
No, you didnāt. But many people play Classic precisely because they donāt want to play Retail.
It therefore is just interesting to suggest that there are features from Retail (not just WotLK but current retail) that would make TBCC objectively better, so long as they are optional.
Thatās not even slippery slope, it essentially is the crux of the DS advocate argument when you get down to brass tax: any optional feature that either improves QoL or is cosmetic without directly affecting other players, is better.
Dual Spec, Allied Races (assuming they had the same racials as their counterparts), LFD and LFR - are all āgoodā changes for TBCC.
1 Like
Several of those supporting dual spec have specifically said we donāt have some line and that we would consider each change individually weighing the good and the bad of each individual change. Youāre unwilling to accept that so you attempting to impose a line upon us. One that you think will get support for your position by making our position seem extreme. We reject your made up line that youāre trying to force on us that comes from no where but your own imagination.
1 Like
LFD/LFR would be hilarious if they were added without doing any of the rebalancing that went along with them.
But yeah things that are low to no impact on others and big QoL improvements for the people who want them should be easy adds. Which is why same faction BGās get brought up, sure itās a big QoL improvement but itās also unavoidable and big impact compared to dual spec.
And hey, thatās fair enough. I still personally disagree but I respect you for your consistency and acknowledge that neither of us are right or wrong on that particular point.
You donāt speak for everyone who supports DS.
You canāt logically refute allied races (so long as they have the same stats and racial as their non-allied counterparts) using the prevalent logic of this thread.
I donāt say that as a positive or a negative thing. Itās just a fact - it would make TBCC objectively better.
If youāre referring to me - I never said you havenāt got a line, what I said was that the line you have seems arbitrary and is based around personal taste.
Youāve mentioned many times changes you wouldnāt want. So there is a line. But itās arbitrary.
Thereās been so many posts on several threads so perhaps you havenāt seen them all. One criterion people use is popularity. For example some have asked for a barber shop. Iām neither in favor of adding it nor am I against it. I donāt even post on the threads. When the topic comes up it gets about a dozen replies and disappears. Very few want that change.
For example when people say adding dual spec is like adding DKās or garrisons. Sometimes instead of arguing the point, which has been argued a hundred times before someone will just say if you want that change start a thread requesting it. If it gets sufficient support from the players the devs might consider it. What weāre really saying is almost no one wants that change, while the dual spec threads get thousands of replies.
The reality is every argument for and against dual spec was made in the first 500 posts on the thread with over 6k replies. Some times we repeat the arguments and sometimes we push them off with a quip because we donāt feel like repeating ourselves. Both sides do that.