No they didn’t, they literally have said nothing one way or the other about dual spec in TBC Classic.
And the decision to add dual spec was originally made during TBC because of TBC’s design.
I, for one, am claiming its never going to change - not while TBCC “matters” anyway. There is no reason to believe otherwise.
There’s nothing recommending the idea of dual specs in TBC classic other than players and these guys lobbied for and praised Blizz for boosts so you already know you’re dealing with a bunch of sell outs in denial. They’ve negated themselves in the discussion of ‘whats good for the game’.
The player reasons for wanting dual specs aren’t in TBCs the MMORPG best interests - just the players. I dont think Blizz is stupid enough to cave to player demand here because there’s literally no good reason too.
Maybe TBC SOM or spin off fresh tbc servers when Wrath drops. If not, then Wrath. Youre waiting game is a little longer than you’d like but I think you’ll live.
It’s been done, you ignore it or hand wave it away as no changes. We have direct quotes from the devs of the day staging that multi spec (which is what dual spec is) would go against against design goals and intentions of tbc. You chose to ignore that. You chose to ignore the vast changes that wotlk brought with it that made spec choice less impactful, you ignore the design changes made to content like heroics becoming much easier, and more.
It’s not that we haven’t explained how dual spec conflicts with tbc, it’s that you refuse to acknowledge those points at all.
Answer this:
Is there any room for compromise? Is there anyway your view could possibly shift from its current position? If so, how? What would be the necessary condition for you to accept or consider a different view?
Basically unless there is one you’re not here to discuss anything.
Having said this it is only fair for me to offer my condition (which I have done many times now). If you can offer convincing evidence that dual spec is consistent (doesn’t directly contradict) the original design intention and that it offers genuine establishable benefits to the game, I’ll consider it.
Note that when I say “is consistent and doesn’t contradict the original design intention” this is not a no change position. There is scope for many changes that don’t overtly counter the design intent behind the game. Of course you and the other 3 know this but will shamelessly misrepresent the claim once again - I have no doubt.
bluetracker.gg/wow/topic/us-en/98646792-we-need-free-respecs-or-spec-swapping/
Let me know if you’re gonna ask this question again, I’ll be ready every time to re-post it for you.
2 Likes
CMs literally said before the release of the original TBC that respeccing would not be made more convenient in TBC because your specialisation is meant to be a meaningful choice and it therefore would go against the spirit of the game.
So you’re right, the devs technically have not commented on dual spec in TBCC specifically but 15 years ago they categorically ruled out anything that would make respeccing easier as poor game design.
Oh thank you, Nathaera is who I was thinking of! She made several posts on this before and after the release of TBC, if I recall.
1 Like
Meaning that if you want to talent as an individual and not follow the rest of the cookie cutter bandwagon, you’ll be subject to rejection.
I recorded the times for you twice…neither were ideal dailies for the fastest, or longest time it would take to complete them, but one of those times was just over 10 minutes, the other was just over 9 minutes. You started calling me a liar on my results which you asked for and at that point there was no reason to do a full 7 day average because you would dismiss the results anyway.
But let’s take a quick look at the math. We will just round everything UP to the nearest minute for simplicity sake, and remember I am round UP which hurts my case more than it will help it.
11 min
10 min
What is the average of those 2 times? I’ll let you do the math yourself.
Is it near, or about 10?
Because 10 min 30 seconds is still about 10 minutes. And I rounded everything up.
You don’t care about math or facts. You only care about your agenda.
Also they did consider dual spec as part of it and when they rejected changes to the respec model dual spec was part of that consideration. There was a strong contingent of players actively promoting a dual spec feature be implemented in TBC - I know this because I was there, I was one of them, my main at the time was a Warlock called Gorian.
2 Likes
Yes before the release of TBC, a decision they changed during TBC because of mechanics in TBC. Because it was a bad decision in regards to TBC.
Think about that for a minute. The players were asking for it back then too.
And were told…“no”
3 Likes
Most of those in favor of adding dual spec have compromised already.
Do you agree that that’s a fairly accurate summary of the events. Not whether you feel it’s a sufficient compromise but whether it is an accurate summary of the compromises we have agreed to. Or do you feel this is a more accurate summary?
So have I and we’ve had productive discussion some of us. But I’m talking about you specifically and the other 3 “campaigners”. I don’t lump people that want to discuss dual spec as being part of that - I’m fine with people asking for a feature and discussing it in good faith. I don’t believe you are discussing it in good faith.
P.S. I presented the compromises I find most compelling - an arena spec being one of them. I also don’t agree with everything that everyone in the no dual spec has said. There is nuance, something you like to pretend doesn’t exist.
3 Likes
The players back then were asking for changes to multiboxing too and were told… “no” Then in classic they made the exact changes players had been asking for
3rd party software of multiboxing vs in game mechanics intentionally designed that way.
They are not comparable.
3 Likes
So what? Once upon a time Blizz said they were never gonna do pve to pvp server transfers and one day they did a complete 180.
Blizz flip flopping on other controversies got nothing to say about this particular situation in which you dont have dual specs and most likely wont until such time TBC becomes TBC Era, if at all. As far as the evidence goes.
If you were discussing it in good faith you would admit the “4” you’re attacking have made compromises and answer my question of whether my summary of events is correct or whether redheadchild’s summary is correct to the best of your recollection. You make this pretense of being above it all but you’re as guilty of bad faith discussion as any of the other posters with strong views and commitment to continue responding.
Your looking at ONE thread for that summary.
I’ve been in dozens of dual spec threads. I gave this information
Based on one of those threads, not the mega thread.
But hay, just because you didn’t personally experience it, it’s a lie right?
Again drawing a false equivelence. Rather than tackle the accusation and defend why you believe you operate in good faith you are attempting to deflect and make it look like your accuser is in the same boat.
Even if I am behaving badly as you suggest - that’s no defence for you to do so and it doesn’t form justification for continued bad faith argument… It’s another herring like your false comparison between Multiboxing and Dual spec.
I have attacked your motives, because I honestly believe they are suspect. I have attacked your tactics because I honestly believe they’re suspect. While I have attacked “the man” I haven’t “played the man”. Even if I’m right about you it doesn’t invalidate your position or prove you wrong. I never said it did. I have made a case as to why I think you’re wrong.
There is a clear difference here in your approach and mine, when I criticise you and the three others I am criticising you specifically and not claiming that this invalidates your side or the people generally pro dual spec. You and the three others however like to pinpoint that whatever trashing you can do of me proves that all anti-dualspeccers are like that - an equivalence - and therefore can’t be trusted. You deploy these attacks as a rhetorical strategy to paint the whole no case as disingenuous.
I’m not doing that. I’m not claiming that all pro dual speccers are disengenuos - only that you are (and 3 specific other posters on the topic).
But I have always maintained the clear boundaries of my position and the areas where I am willing to be swayed. I have provided a clear heuristic through which my position can be countered and defeated. I have presented a good faith position in relation to the topic - something you have not done. We don’t even know in your case what defines an acceptable change versus an unacceptable change.
There is a clear basis for how I can be proved wrong - my position is falsifiable.
Yours is not.
3 Likes