If your need statement is participation, then:
If your use case is gold, why not just make respecs free for everyone or add more dailies to get gold easier? There are other ways to achieve the same result.
1 Like
I farmed my epic flying mount week 1, moron. Single cost, as opposed to ongoing, egregious cost.
I had killed vashj and kael with my mates a couple lockouts into the tier while you were still trying to ingratiate your way into a guild of randoms
should I go on?
Itâs not an ad hominen. Itâs a simple fact. Piaget is the man when it comes to the study of the stages of development in children. Other scholars have disagreed with him, for example Coral Gilligan with her book In a Different Voice, but to do so she and any others have to contend with Piagetâs comprehensive body of work. You should look up and read Piaget and Gilligan if you actually have any interest in deontology.
What matters in the logic and rationality of the arguments people make. You may not have read all the arguments. They are spread over probably 10k posts in a few threads. But if you have you are massively distorting the arguments that have been made multiple times.
So should raid consumes be made free then?
Been in multiple guilds that have killed vash and kael prenerf with consistency. Most of them didnât log the kills. Between realm transfers, raids changing raiding nights, exc I have changed through a few guilds. But they werenât random. They were from connections Iâve made since classic.
Yes please, your just proving your only âargumentâ is insults.
Because thatâs the logical progression of your argument. If your perspective is more nuanced than that, you must develop and articulate it with more consideration.
Can you demonstrate anywhere where Blizzard has said anything remotely similar to that?
Once again, the same argument could be used for allied races assuming there are no stat/racial changes. So thatâs fine if you feel that way but if itâs the basis of your argument, you should also accept that. If not, you need to develop your opinion further.
1 Like
For starters dual spec is very low impact. And the odds that very few people would use it is pretty low considering how many used it in Wrath and Cata, so low impact high gain for the people who would use it.
I donât know what blizzard effort looks like for it, and obviously they arenât putting much effort into WoW in general, but that would be up to them whether itâs worth it or not.
Remember how badly he bungled Cata? YEah I donât treat anything he says as gospel.
Ah yes, Iâm glad you made this retarded comparison which I knew you would.
No, Iâm perfectly happy to pay for raid consumes myself. Why? Because Iâm compensating other players for their time spent farming (even if theyâre bots). Whereas paying money to a trainer is just pouring gold down a meaningless gold sink
any other stupid questions?
yeah iâm sure. Just like you play 10 hours 20 hours however many hours it takes to win this argument, per week
pro tip, youâre the guy i trust the least in this thread by a wide margin, including everyone whoâs argued against dual spec. Youâre just an obvious bsâer
I donât understand what youâre trying to say here. Some arguments have been rational, some havenât. Theyâve almost all been different from one another, with yourself staying different people have different lines in the sand.
So how can I interpret that as anything other than âmajority ruleâ? Different people want the same thing for different reasons, but a critical mass of them agree on this one point?
Yet he is more qualified for this discussion than you and me. And he said dual spec HURT class identity.
You have claimed dual spec has no negative impacts. Yet someone far more qualified for this discussion said it does have a negative impact on the game.
So my point stands.
No you should the stance of the current devs which is that changes are acceptable in TBC Classic.
lmao, typical coward, throws the first punch then cries when he gets socked back
go make up more lies about how much you play the game to suit your argument LOL
There are many arguments that almost every one in favor of adding dual spec agree on. Thereâs not a lot of difference between those who favor adding it.
This pretty much. Itâs where I ended up agreeing with Fasc back when he was involved.
Btw this thread is quickly degenerating into a stream of ad hominem ⌠Again. Right on queue as soon as people attempt to lift the bar.
1 Like
But itâs a continues cost that you pay. And you said THAT was the issue. Doesnât matter where the gold goes, you lose the gold, itâs a cost. And if you buy it from the AH, a portion of that gold does go away forever from the game. Even if you buy it from CoD, gold disappears.
As for your opinion of me I could care less. Even when I give evidence to you clowns you hand wave it away.
You have an agenda, and you will insult, slander, and use defamation to meet that agenda because itâs all you have. You act like a toddler who is upset he has to clean his room before he gets his ice cream and try to scream that you should just get the ice cream without having to clean your room because you like that more.
I mean youâve straight up been caught changing your story so many times now Iâve lost track. Not really sure what you want me to do about it.
Youâd think theyâd be able to find one blue post about dual spec that supported their claims that was actually written for TBCC. Their reasoning seems to be stuck in 2007.
1 Like
But not how or why. Anyone can make assertions. I think giving me 1000 wow gold a week will obviously end world hunger âŚ
Thatâs my issue - I donât agree that the asserted benefits are true. I donât see any evidence that the results you claim will actually happen.
I think the results will be very different but like you I canât prove that. This is the impasse - you reckon one thing and I reckon something very different - neither of us can prove it - and no, WoTLK ainât proof.
1 Like
Zyrius agreed that he is open to other QoL changes from Retail, so long as they are optional.
Egwyn called LFR - which you support - âdumb stuffâ.
The only thing you consistently agree on is Dual Spec.
How is that anything other than majority rule?
2 Likes
And they said tbcc is supposed to be a faithful recreation of tbc. And in tbc a dev gave a hard NO to dual spec. So until the current devs say otherwise their stance on dual spec is the stance of tbc devs. No. Because tbcc is a faithful recreation of tbc and to be faithful it has to abide by clear design goal intentions of the origional devs. And there is no clearer evidence of a stance on dual spec with a hard NO. Other changes made have been in the questionable realm what origional devs would have done as there was no clear yes OR no on the matter so itâs up to interpretation on those subjects. But dual spec has a clear NO.