You literally find zero drawbacks to adding dual spec, when even Blizzard, in all of their unsubtle derpiness occasionally throughout handling this game, could even identify them, and made those reasons very clear back in actual TBC.
If you can’t even come to terms with reasons the actual designers of the game gave, then you can’t possibly be arguing in good faith.
Then it should be easy to find someone who supports dual spec who suggested or agreed to a 24 hour cool down. Since you claim “them,” a plural pronoun, you should be able to find several, but I’m just asking for one
If dual spec had a 24-hour cooldown, I could see myself not being as annoyed with it, but I’d probably lean in to something like a 3-4 day cooldown, like I’m talking it would need super hard limitations, and even id still find the discussion pointless, I’d rather just not have it at all, because it’s not needed.
It’s all just half measures that I’m “less bothered” by it.
I feel like I made a good faith argument and that my opinions are valid. I think I’ve convinced some people and they agree that my opinions about MB in relation to dual spec are valid and relevant. Your opinion that they are a false comparison doesn’t turn your opinion into a fact.
I have attacked your motives because I honestly believe they are suspect. Otherwise you would say, your summary of events closely matches my recollection of events or you would say, As I recall those supporting dual spec first proposed a 24 hour cool down and slowly moved to adding dual spec with no limitations as it as added in wrath. One lies and the other swears to it, or at least tacitly supports it. Wouldn’t that be a reasonable reason to doubt someone is discussing in good faith?
I have never seen anyone supporting dual spec suggest or agree to a 24 hour cool down. I doubt any one supporting dual spec ever would. It’s very excessive. Zyrius suggested a 3 hour cool down which is about the most I would ever agree to.
Okay so this is another bad faith argument.
I am not part of a group that all believe the same things. You keep breaking it down as team A versus team B but it isn’t.
I don’t disagree with every argument made by every pro dual spec person. There are compromises I have accepted that I think provide real value. Nor do I agree with every argument made by every anti Dual spec person.
Personally I was never swayed by the 24 hour cooldown position. I just don’t think it adds any value. It’s one of those compromises that fails to address the core issue and makes nobody happy. I’d even prefer freeform talent switching to dual spec with a cooldown. At least one side gets a result there. If we give up on character specialisation through talent restriction then open it up. Dual spec is a flawed model as we saw in wrath. That said I’m not convinced any talent reform outside one case is worth contradicting design intention at this point. I’m not convinced that talent selection is broken.
It’s not a contradiction or a lie that someone else arguing against you might have accepted that specific option. We have different views. Presenting us as a block is simply brinksmanship - another ploy.
When I call your motives I call your motives specifically and not the motives of everyone arguing for a dual spec option. You’re not a block - there’s a variety of views and arguments.
To my mind the core of the issue isn’t Dual spec - it’s the why. And the why is essentially a discussion about whether there should be character customisation and role flexibility or rigidity. I’m not convinced that Dual spec solves the problems it claims to solve and therefore I require an argument to counter that.
There’s two core points of differentiation:
Is the design principle of niches present in TBC worth countering? What are the benefits of generalised classes (bring the player not the class model) and are they compelling enough to break the design intention of niches and specialisation present in TBC?
If so - what is the best way to incorporate spec/role flexibility - is that dual spec or are there better options? Is dual spec even effective?
There’s only one case in which I think point one is valid and that’s in Arenas. I don’t accept Dual spec as an effective way of achieving this. I simply doubt that it works. Mostly from experience in WOTLK (which I think was a lousy xpac - minus one exception raid).
I haven’t seen any reasons. Only posts saying they wanted it that way. Why did they want specs to matter? How does that improve the game? How and why did they come up with a 50 gold cost? The devs did a much better job addressing all the debate points people made against multiboxing and answered all their questions 15 years ago then those devs in addressing the request for an expanded respecing system 15 years ago.
And more importantly, what they can’t answer is why did they change their minds about dual spec during TBC?
Also while the said it was their design intention to limit respecing they never said BC was designed around limited respecing or that BC’s design was incompatible with dual spec.
Yes what they the society of nochanges having resolved their creed following the council of change it not!
All one group of Borg mind, intent on destroying the game for the free thinking people of #somechanges.
They, the #nochanges society, are stubborn and inflexible and can’t explain why they all collectively change their minds!!!
/Sarcasm
Campaign much? Positively Orwellian rubbish.
The collective #nochanges society that are all of one mind and out to get ya!!!
Right, there weren’t any changes going into wrath that somehow dramatically change the way dual spec interacts with game play. The major design decisions in favor dual spec happened going into TBC, which is why the decision was made during TBC to add dual spec.
Making the non healing hybrid specs non meme, happened going into TBC. Further specializing specs to specific roles/tasks, once again TBC change. Adding arena which due to being win based further emphasizes being in the right spec(which is often incompatible with raiding), once again TBC change. Adding 10 more level going into wrath didn’t change any of that.
I agree. Just my two cents but I thought it should go the other direction - add a cooldown on ALL respecs. Say, about 7 days.
50g to respec was intended to be painful and inconvenient but we became so proficient at generating gold that we trivialised it. Adding a cooldown is one way to break the respec meta and force people to either play a particular archetype, or level a new character if they want the versatility so badly.
I agree, if the argument is that the current 50g makes a joke of the design intent then surely the solution is to correct that rather than break it more?
The fundamental logic doesn’t work. “Oh but you think people have meaningful choices but they don’t! Therefore remove the choice completely!” Huh?
it’s not. You asked:
You asked a question. I gave a good faith attempt to answer it with what I saw as a series of compromises with a summary of the time line. The good faith response would be to acknowledge that the timeline either met your recollection of events or did not. Have we in fact made several compromises to get to this point or is the opposite true in your opinion as redheadchild claims. You could make the argument that in your opinion the compromises are insufficient but it’s not in good faith to refuse to answer.
It is for you. The only reason you would fail to answer that question is rather than engage in a good faith discussion you want to protect some one on your team.
Oh turning it around gets you in the clear again! “I’m not bad because you”.
Lol no, it isn’t for me. There are precisely 4 people I believe are campaigning strategically on this (you’re one of them) - and do not think they represent most pro dual spec people at all.
You claiming your argument is in good faith doesn’t make it so. The very fact that you applied it to all anti dual spec positions as a unit proves it’s not. The fact that you defend that now with a “no U” confirms this further. I’m talking about you not the people arguing for dual spec - you.
I gave you some reasons that I use to base my opinion on. You neither address those reasons nor give reason to back up your opinion. You just claim,
As if that assertion proves your point. You’re not and you have never been interested in a good faith discussion
Trap reasons. Laden with fallacy.
Turning it around doesn’t get you off the hook bud.
This is rather like asking an artist why he made the thing red as opposed to blue.
The simple answer is they made the game, so they get to decide what the intended experience is or not when playing, just like an artist decides whether the thing is red or blue when you look at a picture they made.
Which is to say the answer is: “Because they do”