Dual spec please

It’s ridiculous the way you rewrite history so that the devs would have done exactly what you think is best and reasonable. The devs you use to support your case against dual spec were even more clear that they supported multiboxing. They went into more detail why it didn’t violate the tos and why they thought it wasn’t automation. There are more blue posts defending multiboxing then there are defending dual spec. You could not find nearly as many posts about dual spec from the original devs but you simply decide for them that all those multiboxing blue posts are bullsht they just posted when they would have banned it if they had the technology. Your hypocracy is only exceeded by your lying.

“From a certain perspective, the strange thing about this stance is that the multiboxing player has the least advantage in a battleground. A battleground is a closed system, the teams are ideally even, the multiboxer is more prone to disruptive assaults from other players, and the numerical advantage is wholly nullified in this scenario.”

Malkorix, Blizzard Poster

This issue has been discussed to death on the World of Warcraft forums. If we change our stance regarding multi-boxing, you’ll know it.

Daxxarri – Community Manager 12/5/2012

Two, ten or thirty, or more, the rules still apply. As long as the person registered to the account is the one in direct control of those characters, it is not against our policies to do so.

Vrakthris – Support Forum Agent 6/29/2012

Tom Chilton: [Laughs] Well, we actually are perfectly content to endorse multi-boxing to some reasonable degree. If a person wants to go out and buy a second account and power-level themselves, we’re okay with that.

Patently false. All accounts should be allowed to be played as they see fit provided that they’re playing within our policies. In cases of mulitboxing, all accounts involved are playing the same as any other account, only simultaneously.

-Belfaire, Blizzard Poster

Semantics issue #3:
Does multiboxing give a player an in-game advantage?
“Yes–and so does grouping.”
Therefore, can multiboxing be considered an exploit?
“No. We consider it be an alternative playstyle; not everyone can do it, but if a person is willing to devote the concentration and capital to such a venture–legitimately–we’re perfectly fine with it. Five multiboxed accounts can be feared and CCed just like five solo accounts.

-Belfaire, Blizzard Poster

“I think I might see your concern, so, please allow me to ask a question.

What is the objective difference between 1 player directing 5 characters to attack a single target, and the leader of a team slapping an assist train on a target and telling his other 4 teammates to attack a target with him?

A slight gain in efficiency for the single player/set of characters at an extreme cost in flexibility to deal with exterior threats compared to the team of players?”

Malkorix, Blizzard Poster

“Instead of World of Warcraft, let’s look at chess to draw a parallel.

What is the factual difference (assuming no time limits on turns) between 5 chess players versus 1 player moving across the boards to play against all 5 of his opponents and 5 players facing across the boards versus another 5? Think of each chess team as a ‘character’.

In both cases, you have 10 ‘characters’. 5 White characters and 5 Black characters, each composed of multiple pieces.

Though, to extend the analogy, the 1 player facing 5 would be forced to make the same move on each board. Not something that 5 individual players would need concern themselves with.

For better or worse, World of Warcraft isn’t quite a chess match, but I think the analogy holds.

That being the case, if player is the ultimate concern, then multi-boxers are at a permanent disadvantage. It would, after all, be ridiculous to assess chess around 5 sets of pieces all attacking 1 set of pieces regardless of how they were controlled, would it not?”

Malkorix, Blizzard Poster

“Players, as individuals matter.

Here is why characters are more important for the purposes of this discussion though.

What happens when 6 players controlling 6 characters join a battleground? 6 character slots are filled. Then 4 others are filled with 4 other players controlling 4 other characters. Why?

Because battlegrounds are filled on a character for character basis. They are a closed system that only recognizes characters, and wherein characters ideally are matched against other characters.

What happens when 5 players and 1 multiboxer join a battleground? 10 character slots are filled. The results are identical to a situation where each character is controlled by a single player. We can run over the relative merits and disadvantages of multiboxing til the bovines return to their abodes, but factually, that’s what we’re dealing with:

10 characters vs. 10 characters. The raw ability of those 10 characters to accomplish their goal (winning the battleground) is identical within reasonable assessment of individual class abilities, gear and skill.”

Malkorix, Blizzard Poster

“Here’s the thing though. That multiboxer queues, and waits, just as a 5-man arena team would (to use an example). They take up the same queue time, and the same number of slots on the opposing team. There is nothing to differentiate them from one of the very common groups of ‘pre-made’ players, aside from slightly more effective focus fire, and less strategic flexibility in dealing with threats, much greater vulnerability to crowd control and that being ‘split’ by resurrection is devastating.

The less organized battle ground participants you describe will typically have a much harder time facing that arena team or pre-made than they would a multi-boxer.

Aside from which, occasionally running up against more organized opposition is simply a fact of the battlegrounds. Just as is facing more skilled or more well equipped foes. Factually, while we do our best to structure the queuing system such that players will meet equivalent opponents, there are limitations on that system if we still want to keep the queues at a reasonable length. As a result, sometimes a team will run up against a ‘superior’ opponent (please note the quotes), and have a greater challenge, whether in the form of a pre-made group, multi-boxer, or merely highly skilled or knowledgeable opponents.

Simply because an opponent is ‘superior’ does not mean that a ‘pug’ team isn’t able to adapt and overcome. Having a pre-made group or a multi-boxer doesn’t even necessarily mean that a given battleground team truly is superior. There are a great many variables to take into account.”

Malkorix, Blizzard Poster

“I will give you a purely anecdotal example that I have experienced personally, (perhaps because I love facing multi-boxers).

I happen to play a rogue – a class that excels at sowing confusion and disrupting opposing teams. I was facing a team in Warsong Gulch, half of which was composed of a multi-boxer controlling five characters. I encountered the Warlocks individually, and proceeded to sap them to break up his formation. This forced him to maneuver around in an effort to retain cohesion – something a normal player would never have to do.

I continually would delay and harass him in this fashion. I would often manage to kill one of his characters by sapping one of his group, cheap shotting one, gouging one, then blinding another. Even if I failed to land a kill, his characters were so scattered and disorganized by my efforts and the occasional fear, sheep or other CC thrown by a teammate, that fully half of their team was disabled for most of the battle. We won that match very swiftly.

I am not exaggerating when I say that this player would leave battlegrounds when they saw my name on the opposing team list, or after our first encounter in the field.

A unique situation? Perhaps, perhaps not. Knowing how to fight a multi-boxer, and having the tools do so, means that one character can effectively cripple 5 or more. After all, one mind is simply not as efficient at running those five characters once cohesion is lost, or if 2 of his group have been slain, leaving him with characters scattered across the field. Of note, this is not much different from learning how to effectively fight a particular character class or spec. Knowledge is power.

All of the above is irrelevant though. Ultimately, this isn’t about what one player can do vs. another (or even 5 others). This is about the number of characters in play. Five characters can defeat 5 characters. 5 player run characters actually have a very substantial advantage over a multi-boxer in most cases. That a single player is controlling them offers limited advantages compared to the disadvantages it can present.
Since battlegrounds are a sealed environment, it is always a question of x players versus x players. How many actual players are behind those characters becomes a non-issue.

Essentially it balances out so well in the end that it functionally isn’t much of an advantage at all, and merely becomes a play style choice. As always, we’ll continue to monitor multi-boxing and other in-game behaviors.

If this practice should ever present a truly exploitative influence you can be sure that we’ll make appropriate policy modifications in response.”

Malkorix, Blizzard Poster

“Think of a single key-press as a lever. You pull the lever, and something happens.

Think of multi-boxing as simply attaching 5 levers to a single handle. You’re still only pulling one lever, it just affects more than one something.

Now, think of automation as a lever attached to a set of gears and pulleys. You pull the lever, and a whole slew of bits and bobs start working, gears whirring, pulleys spinning. You might pull a lever, but it sets a process in motion that would be impossible with an ordinary pull of the lever if those gears and pulleys were not in place. Automation can apply to a single character just as much as it could with multiple characters.

The point is that the ‘something’ that occurs spools out without direct human involvement aside from the initial pull of the lever. That is automation. Even if it’s only a single extra step.

In multi-boxing, every action taken by those characters has its source in a human command. Each individual action. Thus, it is not automation.”

Malkorix, Blizzard Poster

“We have drawn a line. You’re talking about automated behavior. Multiboxing is not automated. There is no automation. There is no great advantage, there is no illicit behavior, there is no overwhelming benefit, there is no automation.”

Belfaire, Blizzard Poster

“Allow me to set your argument to rest. This:
Add in a 3rd party program. You press ONE button and all 5 screens react. How exactly is that fair/legit? It’s not. The ability to control 5 computers at once with 1 single keyboard and 1 single press of a button is automation. The ability to make your characters cast their individual spells and skills at once by pressing 1 button is automation.
Is not automation by our standards. This is why multi-boxing is just fine.
The moment that single keypress initiates a string of actions not normally possible via our base macro system for an individual character, then that is a different matter. It is also a separate offense.

Multi-boxing, currently, is not a violation of our policies.
That is all.”

Malkatorix, Blizzard Poster

The idea that the original devs were somehow infallible and made a perfect game has always been silly. They made massive numbers of mistakes and some took longer to fix than others.

So yeah I don’t really care what they thought was a good idea at the time, we can see with hindsight what actually was a good idea and what wasn’t. There’s no reason to be lemmings and just say that’s the way it was with no thought put into it.

1 Like

Says the people who refuse the play the game enough to get 50g for a respec in tbcc. Which is VERY easy to do.

This has never been my claim.

They had design intentions, the execution of those intentions were not always perfect. But we know the design intentions behind a form of multi spec in tbc was a hard NO.

2 Likes

Sure, but the point was what they thought was good design was not always good design.

And arguing for what they wanted(and only at the start of TBC since they decided to add dual spec during TBC) is how it should be is merely a #nochanges argument. Not an argument based on the merits of dual spec.

1 Like

No, this isn’t the point at all, it’s actually completely irrelevant.

I want all the gimmicks, quirks, and “downsides” (as you would perceive them) when I go back to play an older expansion, because those are part of what makes that expansion what it is.

It’s not us saying we thought the expansion was perfect, neither is it us saying that the devs were objectively correct at every point in history as to what constitutes a good idea, but the point of a classic server is to go back and observe, see, and feel the game the way the developers thought was “the way” in that time. It’s a window through which to experience an older version of the game, older design protocols and frameworks.

If you add too many bells and whistles, it actually ceases being a recreation of that version of the game, and instead becomes a mockery or mimicry of it.

These classic servers are definitely done out of demand and there’s a level of entertainment to be had, but pleasing you isn’t the entire goal here. There is still, amongst the inclination to provide a product that had demand, a relative goal of authenticity to “the times” that is attempting to be met, and that’s regardless of any changes you wanna mention or bring up as a red herring.

TBC isn’t even a good expansion in my eyes, many will disagree, but the entire point is that I want to re-experience it with all of the warts as best is possible without a time machine, so I am completely happy with it the less changes they make even if the changes we are discussing are completely positive to the game in a modern sense of trying to be an appealing 2020+ game.

3 Likes

I mean this sounds like a big time plus for me, if you believe this to be reality, because it completely lines up with my valuation of dual spec in TBCC.

In fact this coming from you is kind of funny because it’s essentially agreeing with what we’ve been saying all along, that dual spec isn’t important enough for them to work on or add.

However, we know you have no idea about this.

1 Like

It’s the biggest flaw of blizzard as a company for me. I’ll use a very simple example, the hunter dead zone. Blizzard realized what a big mistake that was quickly and changed it with the very next expansion. Classic vanilla would have been a better game if they had eliminated the dead zone. It probably would have been easy to do but blizzard didn’t want to invest any money in the game. For me re-experiencing that flaw in the game did nothing for me. I wasn’t nostalgic for it. I hated it in vanilla and I hated it in Classic. I don’t get this idea that you want to recreate the flaws in the game. And frankly, no matter how you attempt to explain it it all seems like nonsense to me.

lmao watch him literally never respond to this ever again

absolutely rekt

Same deal with resists in pvp. They suck. Literally no one likes them. I’ll begrudgingly wait until Wrath for them to mostly disappear, but the game would 100% be better without them in TBC.

Likewise with dual spec. As you guys have researched, and pointed out, it was in fact mooted (positively) by developers early on during TBC. And of course, it was implemented in the Wrath beta. It would’ve been implemented sooner except for lack of developer bandwidth/being lower on the priority list. It 100% made the game better in Wrath, for me, a player who played both hybrid classes (priest, death knight) and pure DPS classes (mage) and would 100% make TBC a better experience.

I played all of TBC, from prepatch onwards, through almost all of Wrath, raiding the hardest content that it had to offer (Immortal ahead of the curve, Sarth 3D, Glory of the Ulduar raider/Algalon ahead of the curve, Tribute to Immortality). At no point was I required, or did I require my raiders, to spec double pve specs. Most of us did this at times depending on the content, as it was a no-brainer. There is nothing “different” about Wrath that would suddenly turn it from a poor feature in TBC to a good feature in Wrath. I’ll be damned if idiots try and discount my experience, many of whom didn’t even play TBC at all, near as I can tell from looking at their retail accounts’ feats of strength/achievements.

1 Like

100G to respec and back, every time you want to do it. Stop playing fast and loose with the truth.

All you’re saying here is #onlymychanges

you’re happy with the rubbish we’ve been shoveled so far (you’ve literally said exactly that, I can quote you), but you draw the line where a change doesn’t match your own personal and very arbitrary definition of “too many”.

Please stop.

No, it’s 50g when I want to change spec.

If you are changing spec constantly with no planning for events ahead that’s on you.

I raid for 2 days a week (currently 1 with the nerfs causing us to full clear in under 3 hours). On those days I am raid spec, the rest of the week I am pvp spec.

Plan out how you use your time, don’t change specs on spec of the moment impulses. Wotlk is the one with the game design of be what you want when you want however often you want. Tbc is not designed for constant frivolous spec changes. It’s just the design of the game. Don’t play tbcc as if it’s wotlk.

1 Like

Actually it is, blizzard has specifically said that changes that improve the TBC Classic experience are on the table.

I dont think you understand what this part means.

It doesn’t mean the game being the best it could possibly be. It means the recreation of the experience from back in tbc.

2 Likes

900 comments in this thread and we get Dual Spec.

Tseric confirmed it on his ICQ account.

You will get dual spec. In wotlkc.

2 Likes

Dual spec doesn’t improve the tbc classic experience. It makes it less like TBC and more like WOTLK.

You really just don’t get it, dude.

4 Likes

You joke but i’m fairly sure that’s legit how they inform some of their decisions with these changes. Oh, the “please separate OCE from NA” thread reached 500 posts? People must really want it (ignoring the fact that half the posts were in opposition). Oh, the “we’re getting too much honor” thread reached 600 posts? Better fix that (even though half the posts were evidence disproving what the Andycloud claimed, and another quarter were people begging blizzard to leave it as is).

All they see is Title + post count = support. Half the reason I come back and bump these threads.

22 to go :wink:

Not everyone has the same opinions about what part of TBC they care about, and trying to recreate the experience as was obviously failed badly in Classic.

The reality is blizzard already tried #nochanges and it failed to recreate the original experience. Which is why blizzard dropped that stance for TBC Classic.

You don’t seem to understand #nochanges is not a position blizzard cares about in regards to TBC Classic.

You just can’t come up with any real reason not to add dual spec.