/shrug the changes blizzard have already made are arbitrary.
1 Like
I don’t find this to be even remotely true.
Every single change made has been pretty well justified by Blizzard. Whether I agree with it or not is one thing but all of the changes they’ve made have come with exceptionally detailed reasoning, and other than the 58 boost, which we had no choice or chance to discuss in the first place, none could be argued to be merely QOL or arbitrary, and besides, we all know why they did the 58 boost ($$$$$$).
1 Like
Okay so your criteria for non arbitrary is that blizzard did it. Will you say the same thing about the next change blizzard makes? What if that change is dual spec? And has that position changed after blizzard made a change?
No, my criteria for non-arbitrary is having a reasonable/rational explanation for why it’s necessary to change TBC away from authentic to non-authentic in a certain category, in this case, speccing options.
If the costs were deemed reasonable then, what makes you think they would find it necessary to address that cost today?
1 Like
Right so if blizzard came out tomorrow and gave a reasonable explanation for dual spec like they did when it was originally released you would be totally fine with it?
I would have no choice.
Same with the 58 boost. I don’t agree with their logic behind the 58 boost at all, even believe that it actively harms the game.
So no, I wouldn’t necessarily be “fine” with it but it would show me that it’s important enough of an issue that it needed to be remedied, and changing it didn’t compromise their promise (in their eyes) of presenting an authentic TBC.
Everything they’ve shown thus far indicates it is not important and that they’re sticking to the 2007-era reasoning by basically not acknowledging it at all, or implementing it anywhere where it’s being asked for.
Nothing is important until someone decides it’s important, and that’s just fine.
What Blizzard has asked the community, is to help them prioritize what’s important to US so they can take a look at things. The silence on the topic so far indicates that they haven’t made a decision. They have not explicitly said that they will not consider implementing player profiles (dual spec) or reducing respec costs.
Until they have explicitly stated that, then we are being a good community by giving Blizzard our perspectives, desires and theories.
The attempt to shut down the conversation with #nomorechanges is in direct opposition of the goals of Blizzard’s design philosophy for TBCC.
This isn’t really a useful assertion because it completely ignores all context and tries to paint the situation as if it’s a blank slate.
There is context around dual spec and it’s implications for TBC (as an experience) that we can safely say [probably] contribute to Blizzard’s lack of willingness to do or say anything on the subject.
If it was a big deal, surely they would have addressed it by now? At this point there’s almost no point purely by reasoning of close proximity to the impending WOTLK-C.
You can have the conversation all you want, but stop trying to shut down our opinion on it’s very poor, if any, chances of getting in. There’s nothing wrong with speaking a dose of reality in a thread that seeks to harness a complete fantasy.
I would suggest that if you were intending to extend a dose of reality, that attempting to suggest that there were any direct negative in-game connotations to considering what dual spec would enable that they be voiced - because at the moment every time someone says “no,” there is no substance to the reasoning.
People have provided reasons, (as I’ve acknowledged previously) but these reasons or issues were quickly resolved, or have nothing to do with the game directly (external pressures from other players that you can choose to bow to, or not).
With all of the roadblocks cleared, I personally feel like the thread exists for people to chime in to agree unless someone has something new to add that would be a detractor to the game that hasn’t already been stated/solved for.
I have maintained civility (mostly) in the face of pretty regular “no u” arguments here and I don’t believe I’ve flip-flopped once or changed my tune. Most folks are unlikely to read and re-read nearly 3000 posts on a subject, where the majority of said posts are completely off-topic, are ad-hominem insults, or are tangential attempts to undermine today’s design philosophy by raising 15 year old posts that are completely obliterated by the changes that were already made.
In closing (and I’m going to make an effort to not respond here anymore) There’s a difference between having a discussion about a topic, and using a platform to rail against a larger ideal. I understand the urge to latch onto bigger topics because one might see it as a chance to have their opinion seen - but in reality it’s socially irresponsible to hijack someone’s earnest desire to pass information onto the folks who have asked for this information - in order to shout about something else that’s unrelated.
You’re also completely forgetting that this thread existing is a conflict of my interest: to keep TBC free of dual spec.
So basically what you’re saying is “Let us freely promote something here that will hurt the game for you without getting in our way”.
Like…no. I’m going to actively participate in the rejection of a suggestion that seeks to harm my experience.
3 Likes
No, I’m saying make some new objective arguments because you’re just repeating yourself and stamping your feet.
People are having an objective conversation about subjective things, where your subjective opinions aren’t contributing to the conversation.
Lol. This is your own opinion.
“All our arguments for dual spec are objective, yours against are subjective”.
Please.
Now I know for sure you’re full of it.
4 Likes
Providing objective information about why you want something doesn’t mean it’s not a subjective thing that you’re discussing.
Do you know the difference between facts and feelings?
Your feelings are objectively your feelings.
Your feelings are not, by association, objectively also facts.
Learn the distinction because this new information is quickly proving you are a lost cause to have any discussion with.
1 Like
No, my feelings are subjective, and my subjective feelings have no place in making deterministic decisions for other people.
Objective facts however can be used in a discussion on how to address subjective problems.
The problem is that the #nochanges or #nomorechanges stance is entirely subjective, and should not be used in response to objective facts.
I hope this helps.
1 Like
It’s an objective fact that Blizzard rejected dual spec explicitly and directly.
It’s an objective fact that we’re about to see Phase 3 and they’ve said nothing on the subject, in addition to giving plenty of information on many other changes that mostly occurred around the launch months.
It’s an objective fact that dual spec negatively affects impacts the game in one confirmed-by-Blizzard aspect: spec choice implications.
It’s an objective fact that you’re attempting to gaslight by painting everything anyone who is against dual spec says is “subjective”, while everything pro-dual spec people say is objective.
I hope this helps, you sure need it.
1 Like
It is an objective fact that in 2007 Blizzard rejected dual spec.
It is an objective fact that in 2021 Blizzard asked for continuing and ongoing feedback.
It is a subjective opinion that dual spec negatively effects/impacts the game, and what makes it subjective is that it’s contentious. Facts are not contentious or they can’t be considered facts.
I am saying that arguments that fall outside of objective facts (feelings, desires to remain faithful to the original TBC) are considered subjective.
I do not believe that all arguments that are pro dual spec are objective. For example “it’s too expensive” is subjective.
“When you swap specs you have to go to town, re-set up your addons/bars and gear” is an objective statement. Whether you are OK with that or not is your subjective opinion.
I’m not intending to be as condescending as I’m being, but it’s a challenge to have to explain to you the differences in types of arguments without treating this as education (genuinely).
It’s an objective fact that not all feedback is good feedback.
It’s an objective fact that feedback that contradicts what Blizzard intends the experience of TBCC to be will likely be rejected.
I don’t care what you or anyone else thinks. I care what Blizzard thinks, and until they comment on dual spec, I’m going with the last thing that they said on the matter: that it’s not compatible with their ideal TBC, which this experience is attempting to emulate.
Honestly I feel like mine is the common sense opinion.
This applies most strongly to pro-dual spec people, since the only reason they want it is to save gold.
You are in the extreme, extreme, extreme minority in being OK with the gold cost should there be some silly unrealistic compromise for dual spec’s addition. A vast majority of people who want the feature want it to save money.
Never said it wasn’t. There are addons which you’ve repeatedly ignored the existence of that make this a non-factor though, and please don’t give me the argument about “not having to need an addon” when you’ve already made it abundantly clear that one of your biggest issues is moving addons around per-spec (which I doubt you actually do).
Lol.
Trust me. I am not gaining any wisdom from you, so go ahead and rest easy.
I absolutely do have to modify my UI whenever I respec. Macros, talents, weakauras, bar positions, gear sets, consumables etc. I also have to travel to a capitol city (org), use my hearth, hopefully not fat-finger my talents etc.
Blizzards stance over the last few expansions has been to take widely used addons (itemrack and any number of others) and integrate their capability into the UI. My subjective opinion based on my objective experience being a Ret/Prot based on what my guild needs - is that my experience would improve if they implemented spec profiles.
I am taking objective issues (that other players in my situation also experience) and making a subjective request to Blizzard to consider integrating what requires installation configuration and maintenance of 3rd party addons into their client ahead of the timeline that it took over the natural course of retail expansions.
The fact that I don’t care about the gold should make it easier to debate the merits of what I’m asking for - because it’s very specific. The scope of the discussion can be narrowed down and debated piece by piece.
What negative connotation does what I’m asking for bring to your playing experience?
1 Like
I would agree to your “still have to pay 50g and incorporates the functions of several very popular addons” half-measure if for some reason, in some reality, this feature were actually slated to be added.
However none of this changes the fact that I’m very certain that this is all mere fantasy, and the likelihood of them doing anything is fairly close to zero. You’re trying to get me to compromise over something that already isn’t even in the game nor is there any sign that it will be. I’m happy with the game right now, trying to get me to compromise anywhere is undesirable.
So why do I need to compromise at all?
The game is as I desire it to be right now. I have no incentive to compromise with you.
1 Like