VERY true! Good point Riger!
Still not gonna stop people asking for it.
Because it was be an exceptionally positive experience that was advocated for heavily in the original TBC also. 
Be against it all you want, from my experience youâre the minority.
Maybe a very loud and angry minority, but still the minority.
Doesnât really matter if Iâm in the minority or the majority.
All that matters is what happens.
What you want isnât likely to happen.
Cool, Still going to support it and ask for it, regardless of what you think. 
And Iâm still going to be in here telling you why you wonât get it, regardless of what you think 
See itâs not hard to be smug.
Iâm not being smug. Youâre the one getting overly involved in this.
not sure what you mean but I guess you have nothing useful to offer to this discussion so good night
Neither do you apparently. So bye.
Iâve offered plenty.
Your best shot so far is âyouâre an angry and loud minorityâ.
Riveting.
Youâve not offered anything.
You might think you have, but you havenât.
How have I not?
You donât think Iâve offered an argument for why dual spec shouldnât be considered? Are you trolling?
Nope, but itâs clear you seem completely intent of demanding having the last word. 
Dual specc would make the game better wholesale, full stop.
Personally I hope blizzard does add it, and I will happily pay the 1,000g to get it.
And I will continue to post showing my support for itâs addition, regardless of what a cranky minority of naysayers say.
Go on, have that last word youâre so desperate to have.
1 Like
Itâs not the last word Iâm just trying to make out the point youâre hoping to make, you entered the discussion for a reason I assumed.
Blizzard wonât add dual spec because:
Straight from the blues of the time.
Sorry but this is hogwash, we donât need dual-spec we need people to play the game.
OR
Going outside their guild and interacting with others.
Itâs a MMO people, time to start playing it like ones.
2 Likes
The devs who currently work for blizzard donât care what the devs who donât work for blizzard anymore said 15 years ago. If they cared they wouldnât have banned input broadcasting software that the old devs said was perfectly ok, not automation, and would never be banned. Since they donât care what the devs who no longer work for blizzard said I donât care what they said. I only care about what the devs who currently have the power to make changes say.
1 Like
Well thatâs false, entirely.
They literally went to have a sit down with the guy who organized the patch that broke feral energy in order to justify changing it to something it never truly was in real TBC, a change I was OK with.
Sorry but history does not reflect your disposition. The current devs are indeed respecting the original design for the most part.
Thatâs why they havenât added any sort of dual specâŚ
Class design is different from tbc to wotlk. Content is designed differently as well, as an example heroics are vastly easier in wotlk compared to tbc. Talents are also different, maybe not to the degree of retail, but they have some considerable changes.
But this has already been told to you, you refuse to accept it.
Iâve asked for details about why dual spec would not work in TBC, what is different specifically about class design or content design that breaks dual spec. If there are such glaring differences you should have no problem pointing them out.
Letâs see raids/dungeons have the same basic comp requirements and swing in role requirements fight by fight so that hasnât changed. Specs are still hard focused on one role which for some roles is terrible outside of raids/dungeons so that hasnât changed. TBC Was the expansion that added arenas which strongly emphasize bein in the correct spec(unlike BGâs which are purely a time played reward system) not Wrath. Weird seems like all the reasons people want dual spec are the same between TBC and Wrath and thereâs no major change in basic design.
The reality is there was a much much bigger design change going from vanilla into TBC than from TBC into Wrath.
1 Like
Blizzard 15 years ago was far more clear about multiboxing than they were about dual spec. The new devs banned both input broadcasting software and hardware anyway. If you had a shred on honesty in your responses youâd admit that. That you donât is why you 3 against dual spec disgust me. Youâre the lowest of the low of anyone I talked with in decades. The red haired child is the worst. He actually made up the lie that the devs would have banned multiboxing 15 years ago but didnât because the technology wasnât available.
âFrom 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.â
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
This issue has been discussed to death on the World of Warcraft forums. If we change our stance regarding multi-boxing, youâll know it.
Daxxarri â Community Manager 12/5/2012
Once the determination was made the allow a person to have multiple WoW licenses registered to a single Battle.net or even multiple licenses under the same name, how many becomes entirely irrelevant.
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 â 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, weâre okay with that.
Patently false. All accounts should be allowed to be played as they see fit provided that theyâre 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?
âYesâand so does grouping.â
Therefore, can multiboxing be considered an exploit?
âNo. 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 ventureâlegitimatelyâweâre perfectly fine with it. Five multiboxed accounts can be feared and CCed just like five solo accounts.-Belfaire, Blizzard Poster
âI 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?â
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
âInstead of World of Warcraft, letâs 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 âcharacterâ.
In both cases, you have 10 âcharactersâ. 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 isnât 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?â
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
âPlayers, 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, thatâs what weâre 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.â
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
âHereâs 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 âpre-madeâ 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 âsplitâ 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 âsuperiorâ 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 âsuperiorâ does not mean that a âpugâ team isnât able to adapt and overcome. Having a pre-made group or a multi-boxer doesnât even necessarily mean that a given battleground team truly is superior. There are a great many variables to take into account.â
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
âI 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 â 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 â 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 isnât 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 isnât much of an advantage at all, and merely becomes a play style choice. As always, weâll 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 weâll make appropriate policy modifications in response.â
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
âThink 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. Youâre 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 âsomethingâ that occurs spools out without direct human involvement aside from the initial pull of the lever. That is automation. Even if itâs 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.â
Malkorix, Blizzard Poster
âWe have drawn a line. Youâre 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.â
Belfaire, Blizzard Poster
âAllow 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? Itâs 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.â
Which you ignored most of them and dismissed the others as nochange arguments, which they arenât.
The only one you even remotely addressed was how it effects the meta for raid min maxing.
The best option for dual spec in tbc would be an instanced pvp only second spec.