/shrug you want a real discussion?
We have opposed opinions of what classic should be. Blizzard tried your POV in classic and it failed. Blizzard has specifically said changes are on board for TBC Classic.
Why is dual spec bad?
Misrepresenting an argument as nochanges or outright ignoring it is not leveling an argument.
1 Like
We are tired of giving the reasons because they use circular argument tactics or outright misrepresent what we say. Or accused of fear mongering. Or just call us a liar, throw insults, exc.
As a quick example zyrius has constantly called anything against dual spec nochanges.
We haven’t used no changes as our argument though, we have pointed out how it effects raids in terms of min maxing, removing any desire to bring a hybrid spec that can dps and heal well, for those fights you will want more healing, how dual spec goes directly against the intended design goals (not exact design, but the intention behind it, this isn’t no changes, its about not changing something in a way that goes directly against what the games design goals supports, for example, you don’t change a first person shooter into a turn based strategy game and call it a QoL change, it’s going against the intended design goals of the games very core of being a fps.
And many more. But these arguments have been ignored, misrepresented, exc by most of the pro dual spec people.
Zyrius acknowledge the min max raid issue but ignored the rest or misrepresented it as a nochange argument.
I for one wouldn’t be against a pvp only dual spec, but if it’s just a general dual spec the CD for switching needs to be long enough that it followed the design intentions of tbc not wanting specs to feel like a trivial choice but a meaningful one, and not have people changing specs with it mid raid to a degree it removes any room for hybrid specs or effects the min max possibility.
After this discussion has gone on for months I have come to the point of accepting a compromise, but I have seen how they twist that as well. They go from arguing thatv"we could add a CD to it " and when you suggest a CD that will keep tbc design intentions in mind, as an example, at least 3 hour CD (close to most guilds average raid time), others speak up and say “why not just a 30 min CD” which defeats the purpose of the CD because almost no activity in tbc is going to take longer than 30 minutes to do, and thus the 30 min CD doesn’t feel restrictive at all. It would lead to people changing specs multiple times per raid, changing spec to pvp foe a game or two then change back, change to a heroic spec, finish heroic then change to pvp spec, exc. The CD wouldn’t feel restrictive at all (which changing specs was supposed to feel that way based on a blue post from tbc on multi spec) and would go directly against the intended design goals of tbc.
So even with showing I am willing to compromise, they push for more and more to get wotlk version of dual spec. And if blizzard does decide to add dual spec, with their track record they would likely take the lazy way and just put in wotlk version in full. And that would have very noticeable negatives to tbcc.
5 Likes
NGL dual spec would be pretty good imo and might get more people into actualy playing the game/ playing their main instead of leveling an endless swarm of alts or being locked in pvp spec/raid spec and not running the other part of content
I have posted that but I haven’t seen anyone else post it. By far, the vast majority of the people have not claimed that. So how is it that you became so confused that you generalized a single poster’s claim to all the people you respond to? That’s a rather extreme mistake. A massive flaw in your reading comprehension. Or are you knowingly generalizing a single person’s post to everyone for propaganda purposes? That would be lying.
And yet both of these features had a sect of people who both lauded and praised their addition.
I was on the front lines and fought against those changes too, before they happened. Even worse, people who live in this thread whining for dual spec use those changes as justification for why adding dual spec is a good idea.
Dual spec is yet another change I believe will have problematic aftershocks. Unforeseen to you, but quite clearly outlined ad nauseam by myself and several others.
It’s odd that you’ll wear the shoe on the other foot for changes that resulted in hurting your experience, but can’t see the forest through the trees on anything else. It’s a weird type of tunnel vision you suffer.
That’s false. We use those changes to point out the fact that no changes is not an argument that exists in BC. Since the devs making a public statement saying BC is not no changes, announce that more changes are coming, and asking the players for feedback on what changes are wanted doesn’t seem to be enough to convince you that changes are a part of classic bc.
It’s the red haired child that comes up with justifications for all those changes. Even to the point of calling the original devs liars with all their posts defending multiboxxing, claiming that they are all bs designed to hide “their” view that they actually wanted to ban them but lacked the technology.
Then your argument is no changes as Zyrius has often pointed out.
The only people saying nochanges is you and Ziryus. You constructed your own nochanges strawman and then argue with it.
This argument has been steel manned so many times there’s no excuse for your ignorance at this point.
1 Like
This is something that really needs community support in game.
Everytime you don’t tank/heal something let it be known why in game.
I have a guild mate who is having trouble finding a permanent arena partner. When he asked in guild a few people said they couldn’t afford the constant respecs
Getting reported doesn’t matter if you didn’t break the tos. I’ve been reported. When I didn’t break the tos the suspension was lifted when I appealed. If that didn’t work for you the question would be why? I don’t think I have some special protection from the forum mods. The logical answer is you actually broke the tos.
To be fair that is a valid thing to be jealous of…
I say WAGGLES FOR ALL!
I’m against DS in TBCC, but think a 3-4hr CD (real time, not /played) and only in rested areas would be a fair compromise. It’s long enough that you’re not doing it “mid-content”, but short enough that you could pvp in the AM and do your raid that evening or do activity A today and swap specs before logging out for activity B when you logged back in and then swap again for activity X after that.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they just dropped DS in it’s level 30/10g state so they never had to touch it again and could play it off as a favor to us “to be more accessible for lower level parties”.
That’s my biggest concern about DS coming to TBCC. What form will it take and what doors will it open. We’ve already had enough changes to the game that it’s a remaster, so how far will it go? Rep tabards so people can catch up? Tables that you can self cast? Removing reagents from quite a few spells? Later seal changes for pallys? Hunter pet happiness? Druids rez (30 min, 10 min, 30 min again, no reagent, give a real rez)? Shadowmeld in combat?
Making a change in the name of player convenience may seem like a small stone tossed into the pond, but how many ripples are we ready to accept?
1 Like
Are you honestly so impervious to common sense that you can’t see how you just utterly contradicted yourself here? Manifesting a blatant strawman?
I wasn’t against those changes because of #nochanges, I was against those changes because I believed them to be harmful to the authentic experience.
Some changes are not so.
Some are.
How many times must this be repeated?
THIS.
2 Likes
So many of your arguments for an “authentic experience” boiled down to no changes. Your personal opinion about what makes an “authentic experience” or what corpse claims that changes requires deserve and need is not the standard used by blizzard. Their standard is "changes that are in the best interests of the players.
Patrick Dawson: “No changes” being our guiding principle for WoW Classic made it very easy to make decisions on it. We just went to the reference client and went to that. But one thing we learned as we went through the release of the content in Classic is that [no changes] may not always be in the best interest of the players. Putting back in things like spell batching made the game feel a little less crisp. It was authentic, but it’s not what modern players want. The community today is so different from what the community was back in 2007 that it had us take a different philosophy with Burning Crusade, where we actually started to allow ourselves to make some changes that were in the best interests of the players that will continue to develop alongside the community.
And if that’s the case all you have to do is actually make a real argument why dual spec would harm the experience.
Something you can’t or won’t do.
No they don’t, you just have poor reading comprehension.
Dual spec is not in the best interest of those who want an authentic recreation of TBC.
The people this product is marketed to.
That’s not a no changes argument.
It’s a “dual spec is over the line” argument.
You clearly are not the one being marketed to, because you hate actual TBC with every fiber of your being and want every part of it that isn’t to your liking changed to suit you. I do not. I’m OK being forced to overcome the sucky parts about TBC in TBCC, because well, that’s damn near the entire point of going back to a time when the game wasn’t as good as it eventually became.
Like, don’t you get it? The sucky parts are a “feature” of TBCC. That’s supposed to be part of the fun of it.
“Damn, back then, it was like this, instead of the way it is today!”
That includes dual spec.
“Damn, back then, there was no dual spec and you had to work around it!”
The entirety of this phenomenon is strained or harmed when you cut down those parts of the game that make it what it was, and simply make it in to the newer versions of those things to suit modern players.
I understand that the practicality of this results in players who are just plain unhappy with the same things that players were unhappy with back then, and we have clear proof that people were whining for muli-specs of some kind back then as well.
So heck…maybe this giant annoying thread is all just part of the TBCC authentic experience too 
4 Likes
No they didn’t lol. They factually did change things in classic vanilla.
If you live in a fantasy world this distorted, there really is no reasoning with you.
Already made it.
Sorry if you missed it 
It’s not my responsibility to repeat things ad nauseam until you actually read it. You’ll just have to own your lack of willingness to interpret new information and read my post history or something.
You’re ignoring my point. You said that we spammed the forums with dual spec threads and that we were “bullying” the developers by doing so. When you made this comment, there was one on the front page (this one), and two that you had to scroll down a bit of ways to find. You accuse us of lying to meet an agenda and you’re literally doing it yourself. Congratulations on the hypocrisy!
I read the thread. Every point that was substantiated to some capacity was met with a rebuttal that was also validated, and almost every time, it came down to the other person not wanting to accept that dual spec wouldn’t be harmful to the game.
So you’re right. Arguments are being fully ignored.
So, to reiterate since everyone seems to keep ignoring this point:
People are already swapping specs anyways. There is so much gold in the economy right now that the fee required to change specs is somewhat marginal. Wherein the fee during the original timeframe of TBC for swapping specs acted as a significant gold sink, it’s now just a nuisance and inconvenience to have to travel back to my capital any time I want to change specs, and pay a fee to do so.
Dual spec wouldn’t cause anything that isn’t already happening in the game right now because, as it stands, multiple players are already playing multiple specs. There’s no reason for it to not be in the game.
So then there is no need to add dual spec because the “problem” that you’re looking to solve doesn’t exist in the first place…
The change has no merit in this circumstance, you just want them to modify the game “just because”.
Face it, it makes something easier, and that’s attractive to you. How does it make things easier? By making it cost less (I.E. nothing). We’ve had people up and down these threads talk about how the only reason they don’t respec is due to the cost, you can’t simultaneously back-pedal for all of them.
Truthfully, I’ve seen this point trodded out a few times, and it would make sense if it were actually true, but we know that it isn’t because these threads exist at all. The primary bar for most of these people whining for dual spec is not wanting to fork up the gold for it.
You aren’t the first to ride the idea that “the cost is negligible anyway so adding it changes nothing”, doubt you’ll be the last.
5 Likes
Thats another hilarious part. They dont have to have a real reason and say they dont need one but they still ask the same of you. Burden of proof is on them yet you have to make an argument against dual specs and when you do they just deny the arguments existence and file it under nochanges which is just something they made up.
3 Likes