But…it literally does.
This is the literal definition of fingers in your ears going “blah blah blah na na na”.
1 Like
I’d argue the player base is just as entitled and demanding as they were back then.
Even the quotes we provided from the dev on multi spec showed he knew the people complaining would chose to ignore the hard NO he gave them and keep demanding a form of multi spec.
It’s a Classic game with Modern players and all of the issues with Classic and TBC are player created. The cited quote came from a different era of gaming so the design intent can no longer be held as valid.
Whether it’s just because we aren’t the same person/player we were in 2004 or a general change in how people game there’s no way to replicate the feeling of playing WOW back then.
So saying the devs back didn’t want Dual spec in original TBC doesn’t really mean anything in the current world. They also didn’t want all the other things that have changed or were added.
Go to retail.
3 Likes
In what way? Does it explain how it would “heavily alter” the TBC experience? Does it explain any claims you’ve made?
All it says is that there has to be an investment in specs. Nothing more about how it would create an imbalance or alter the game to such a degree that TBC would be unrecognizable.
Yes, in fact I don’t even know how it could be more clear.
You’re stripping out all the relevant context to suit your narrative.
They wanted there to be investment in specs, yes great catch, but in context this was the reasoning given as to why they continuously said no to feature-begging for multi-spec in TBC.
It was their explicit justification for why dual spec could not be added in TBC.
So I side with TBC-era Blizzard with what should or shouldn’t be OK in a game that is meant to imitate that.
On the flip side, other changes they’ve made actually had support from the TBC-era devs, for example, the feral energy change. They actually went and talked to the guy who worked on that patch and he straight up said it was a bug and wasn’t mean to be the way it actually was…so this was a literal change that I don’t mind, because the design intention was there, it was just overlooked during the era.
So to, frankly, be overly direct since you can’t seem to interpret an answer to your question unless it’s special-crafted for your eyes/ears:
It goes against the design of TBC because Blizzard literally said that it does.
To me, something that directly contradicts the originally intended design, counts as “heavily” altering the TBC formula.
Make sense?
1 Like
So your argument is:
Blizzard said so, and because Blizzard said so, we shouldn’t disagree with them at all and just accept the fact that dual spec won’t be added into the game.
To which I, and many others, have pointed out that changes weren’t out of the question for TBC.
If we’re just going to go with whatever Blizzard says, why even have these forums to begin with?
And to me, adding a QoL that literally does nothing to anything that actually matters (raids, dungeons, arenas, battleground, etc.) isn’t “heavily” altering anything.
There is a difference between blizzard just saying no, and saying NO and explaining how said change would go against their intended design goals for the game.
Blizzard didn’t just say no to dual spec, they explained how it went against their design goals for the game.
To ask this question demonstrates a misunderstanding of the product we’re discussing in the first place.
TBCC isn’t mean to be a fluid and evolving project, like retail WoW (which I’m heavily inclined to think you should be playing instead of this tbqh).
It has nothing to do with being beholden to Blizzard, so much as it is beholden specifically to the design intention of the developers of the original TBC, because if you contradict them, then you compromise the authenticity of this project’s identity, like they did with boosts and arena changes.
That means for better or for worse, some things have to be the way they were, even if some of those things sucked.
I don’t like Hyjal, it’s like the worst instance in the game, but I’m not asking it to be swapped out for something else I liked in a later expansion. Most people might even agree that Hyjal is boring but I accept that it’s a part of TBC that cannot be changed.
There’s other things I think are disjointed and antiquated about TBC as well, but I don’t want them to “fixed” because that takes away the entire charm of it.
There’s plenty of reasons to still post. Just because blizzard has a plan that should remain relatively unchanged doesn’t mean they execute on that plan perfectly, in regards to scheduling or execution. There’s plenty to critique on that front and that’s exactly what people do here.
There are some things, though, that no matter how much you critique it, can’t and shouldn’t be changed, and more specifically this is in regards to actual game features or lack thereof. It is the way it is for a reason.
You don’t get to decide the “only” things that matter in this game.
Gold management is easily a huge part of the older versions of WoW, an element of the game that became completely arbitrary in later versions.
1 Like
If the design goal is to having choosing a spec a big player investment, dual spec doesn’t negate that. See below:
And again, TBCC was #somechanges from the start, not #nochanges.
I don’t know why you think I should be playing retail simply because I disagree with this one aspect.
TBC is my second favorite expansion of all time. I love it to death, quirks and all. I played it when it first came out and am still of the opinion that it changed how expansions functioned as an addition to an existing game.
And I agree with you. I feel like the addition of level boosts were a massive mistake, and the addition of incentivized subscriptions with cosmetics leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
There are some things that should simply stay out of TBC, namely things that would change how we interact with the world on a larger scale. To me, dual spec doesn’t do that. All it does is change whether or not I have to fly back to a capital to change my spec when I want to do a different activity. The “investment” argument is not negated here because you’re still investing in your toon’s talent trees. If you make a mistake or want to rebuild said tree, then you pay money for it. That sort of game design doesn’t go away with dual spec.
And that’s fine, but if someone came to the forum with a legitimate explanation as to why it should be swapped for something else, or perhaps revamped to be more interesting, I wouldn’t immediately shoot it down because that’s how the game is supposed to be.
Granted, changing or removing an entire raid isn’t exactly the same as adding dual spec. One is an entire tier patch, and the other is a small feature. To be honest, this example is a bit apples to oranges. You would certainly have to put up a larger and more persuasive argument for removing Hyjal, but nonetheless, you’re not out of your realm of jurisdiction to make that suggestion.
And I accept that TBC doesn’t have dual spec. I still wouldn’t mind if it were added, though.
Maybe not, but it goes without saying that this is where most players are spending their time.
At some point, sure, but gold is relatively easy to come by in this version of TBC now. Gold management was a huge part because most of us didn’t really understand the game still. Nowadays, this game has been so stripped down by players to its bare parts that we can easily exploit the systems in our favor and do what we didn’t think of prior. Gold is overflowing within the economy now.
I will say that I appreciate you accentuating your point a bit more. Thank you for that. I can understand where you’re coming from a bit better and am willing to see your side of the argument. I still want dual spec added, but nonetheless, I appreciate you explaining yourself a bit more to me.
Blizzard seemed to think so, though, and whether they were wrong or right, I want to experience the ramifications of their decision making in a different generation of game design for a game that became something that I wouldn’t touch with a 10ft pole. That’s why I went back to classic vanilla, and subsequently that’s why I’m here. I want to feel the progression of their game design elements.
Dual spec was a welcomed feature when it was added in WOTLK, it will be so nice to get it when we go in to WOTLKC, but you completely rob me of getting to feel that sense of game dev progression the way it originally happened by hamfisting later features in to the older versions.
Arguably the entire point of these is being able to contrast the old WoW with the new WoW without relying on purely anecdotes (“well when I played vanilla xyz”). To go back and see what it was like, as sort of a museum experience. That entire element is stripped if you “modernize” it. It definitely can’t be marketed as an authentic recreation anymore at that rate for sure.
4 Likes
1st off it would be a 100 Is 50 to switch in 50 to switch back 2nd of all says the hunter The literally strongest farming classed in tbc Sure why would you care.
I mean yes is there A PVP spec for hunter’s sure But the biggest difference is for a hunter Either one whether be PVE or PVP you’re still beast mastery.
You’re still 41/20 And the differences are so minescual Is what instead of picking up rapid killing Improve concussive shot instead Instead of 5 you put 2 inefficiency And in beastmastery You put 5 out of 5 instead of one into endurance training You put one into thick hide Pick up Beastful swiftness Don’t pick up animal handler And put 5 out of 5 into fury instead of 4.
so yeah Is your PVP hunter speck doesn’t even change that much so yeah Is more like a class like a rogue your entire spec changes.
so yeah Because basically what you’re saying is oh well everyone should just level up hunter yeah because that’s completely fair.
So I still say #DuelSpeck
BC was not marketed as an authentic experience.
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. 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.
2 Likes
I mean, paladin is the best farming class when done right, and it’s 50g per spec change. If you don’t plan on being in that other spec very long to where you feel it’s price is 100g because you will only be in it for a day, that’s a YOU problem.
I change spec twice a week. It’s not 100g per, it’s 50g per. I’m not changing spec to be worried about what I am doing in 3 days, I change spec to do what I want to do then and there, but I do plan around what I will be doing to maximize my use of spec change.
I have a hunter, but I don’t do all my farming on said hunter.
If you are worried about endless respecing, make a second character like I did.
I’ll save him some effort. I went through the post histories of all four of you in that “Dual spec… please?” thread, several thousand posts’ worth, and found absolutely no argument of merit, nor from any other anti-dual spec posters such as Henceforth.
The arguments I did find went like so:
- No one is really asking for dual spec (even though there have been several dozen unique posters).
- Fasc, Feywaif, Ziryus, Chiffley, Dumpsta, Rosamoon, Xuxu, Kumasama, Kanshu and myself are all the same person on their various alts.
- Dual spec will not help the tank shortage. Anyone who claims they will spec tank in their second spec, such as my mate Chiff, is lying. Seriously. I can quote that.
- You dont need to spec prot to tank. Even though, as my mate chiff pointed out, he literally cannot hit def cap in his current tank gear, which is far from bad, without speccing prot. Apparently he should just get instagibbed by Felguards instead.
- Paying for respecs is easy, just have 20k gold in the bank left over from classic gdkps.
- Dual spec ruins the value of my tank spec, but also no one will spec tank anyway anyyywwy won’t fixx tank shortage
anyyyy annERROR_LOGICAL_CONTRADICTION_DETECTED - Dual spec hurts my feelings.
Seriously. Don’t let this guy bait you into wasting your time. At least you can enjoy a full 2 pages of Riger spewing insults at people and then telling everyone to be civil, though. That one amused me.
2 Likes
But but but then she can’t use #nochanges as a reason for no dual spec.
1 Like
This is a perfect description of ONE of the major issues plaguing pvp participation right now.
“nah I won’t do arenas tonight, I have raid tomorrow and don’t want to waste the 100g”
Do you find it hypocritical that your number one argument against dual spec is “it is against the original tbc design goals” but you have posts supporting same faction bg’s.
Same faction bg’s are literally the opposite of original wow design goals (ie two opposing factions at war with each other). But you supported them.
And long bg queue times for one faction have been a staple of wow since it’s inception. Yea it’s crappy but that was the “original design goal”.
3 Likes
There is a difference between stating the reasons blizzard made the change, and understanding those reasons.
And supporting the changes blindly.
I understand d why the changes were made, and have stated blizzards reasons for the change. Doesn’t mean I supported it.
Also note I have said I would support a pvp only dual spec. I won’t support a wotlk version dual spec though.
1 Like
I hope they don’t add it in at all. Traveling back to my main faction city, paying 50g, and resetting up my bars is such a core element of the game I would just quit if they took it from me.
Imagine swapping into a pvp spec right after raid and queueing without paying 50g, it would completely ruin the game. /s
It literally was and still currently is. It’s in the header text on the front landing page of the product.
It’s up to you to figure out how “authentic recreation” and “some changes” appropriately co-exist, but I can tell you one thing for certain based on the changes we’ve had so far: you can’t fulfill the latter condition by adding in features that are mainstay features of later expansions.
2 Likes