Not at all. We’ve all acknowledged that hybrids can’t compete with deep-specced counterparts. But you’ve now got the flexibility to play multiple roles without needing to respec.
Again, decisions have consequences. This is as absurd as saying “I levelled a warrior but I should have a healing spec!”. Or “I should be able to be Exalted with Bloodsail and Steamwheedle!”. Or “I should be able to have more than two professions!”.
Which goes back to TBC design of intentionally making specs more specialized for specific roles.
Not even worth the reply, but I’ll bite. Because a.) That is not the character he wants to play, b.) He’s then splitting time and gear between 2 characters, which literally solves nothing.
???
Ok
/10char
Well let’s use your own logic. I levelled a warrior to 70 and now I want to heal. Blizzard should let me heal as a warrior.
Even a warrior has two roles, tanking and dps, it’s not only punishing to warr that he can’t tank or dps on the fly, but punishing to those around him that may want to utilize one spec or the other.
You call it consequence, but I call it punishment.
It should have three. Why should I have to level another alt to heal?
Yeah, but this is fundamentally different game design. There are games like what you propose with on the fly speccing, no fixed roles, points based character customisation without classes. They exist aplenty and this is not one of them.
No strong case has been made to my satisfaction as to why this game needs to be made more like those games or why people who have a strong preference for that model even find themselves in this game in the first place …
I don’t get people coming into TBC classic complaining about core game design choices. You don’t like the core game design you don’t have to play it.
By the way - I get that people want stuff tweaked or whatever but the claim that fixed classes and roles is bad design begs the question: why play this game when it is based on rigid classes and roles? Pick something more to your taste and don’t shove it down my throat.
And this is the thing - game design is subjective - there’s no right or wrong no morally superior position. It’s a matter of taste. What I find objectionable is when you try to claim that the current game has an objectively inferior model that needs to be changed. No it doesn’t - it’s not to your particular taste.
None of which dual spec let you do.
So it’s pretty irrelevant to a discussion about dual spec.
Horde vs Horde, arena changes, overnerfed bosses, etc. Looks to me like they’re picking and choosing what is a core game design and what isn’t.
100% agree with this. These “punishments” are fundamental tenants of old-school RPG design.
You can multiclass in D&D 3.5 but you won’t be able to perform the abilities of either class as proficiently as a pure class of the same level. You can try lockpicking as a warrior in Morriwind but you’ll go through more picks than Jimmy Hendrix.
What these people want seems to be Skyrim. Where you can just pick up any skill at any time with no investment or training, and killing any prospect of replayability or - you know - role-playing.
I was arguing about that persons specific objection to class and role specificity. But go ahead and do your usual twisting words around routine.
I’m not closed to dual spec completely (I’m not convinced it is worth it and I think it could erode class and role choice) - but I have a preference for the class and role model design currently in TBC classic. I don’t believe it is an objectively bad model - which is what the person I responded to was claiming.
No you weren’t the person literally made an argument for why dual spec, not free form specs, would benefit him and others around him.
You were the one who turned that somehow into complete free form spec, which is not what dual spec is nor what anyone is asking for. And if you like not having dual spec, the great thing about optional features is you could simply not use it and have exactly the same class identity you do now. Plenty of people did exactly that when dual spec was released because they were happy with whatever they were doing.
As I said I don’t trust you and replying to you is always a trap. You’re wrong and twisting it again. You and fey and two others who haven’t posted recently so I don’t want to name them and draw them back in. Specifically four of you.
This is what you replied to,
How is that in any way asking fo,
I’m not seeing anywhere a proposition for free form specs.
Lacking context. I won’t engage with you on this. the poster can speak for himself.
This is the original context and I quoted only the most recent comment he made at that time. It’s his paradign not his comment I was challenging:
Now - if he’s not coming from a position of seeing class and role specificity as a design flaw, then I take it back. But he certainly appears to be making that point.
But as usually you won’t engage with the point, your purpose here is to trap and obscure and to twist the discussion to your agenda.
No it’s not, it’s literally what you replied to and you either just don’t know what dual spec is and how it works or you intentionally misrepresented it.
It’s because I don’t even know how to reply anymore on this matter. everything had been said on both sides towards pros and cons.
I can tell you this much. DS isn’t going to help me much given the current situation of my server.
By that logic, I don’t feel it is going to have the detrimental effect your side claims.
I never claimed it was enough gold to change specs freely with 0 consideration of gold costs.
It’s enough to change specs weekly. If you want to treat tbc like wotlk I’m terms of changing specs constantly, thats your own fault for playing the game in a way it wasn’t designed or intended to be played.
What I have said is it gives you enough gold to change your spec to participate in other areas of the game and then go back to your raid spec. Not to change specs without a care in the world.
Also if you are doing 3 dailies e ery day, you will end up around 150g a week., so that’s 3 spec changes. 4 dailies is close to 200g. Exc.
You keep misrepresenting what I say.
I can accept that - on both counts. I don’t think it will kill the game, not more than other changes that have already happened. I don’t think it will improve the game either.
I certainly don’t consider the current talent spec system a flaw, and that’s where I think we differ perhaps?
My defensiveness is not at you - I meant what I said but that other poster is someone who’s motives I simply don’t trust. I’ll gladly discuss with you whatever. We disagree and that’s fine.
I’m actually not that committed to the cause so to speak. I think it’s largely academic at this stage. But I tend to jump in to provide a counter point as without one there is an illusion of consensus on the topic pushed repeatedly by a few.