Dual spec please

[Egwyn-arugal]

@Redheadchild-kul-tiras

There was a vast change in design goals. This was seen from class changes, content changes, exc.

Well, great you replied to this I suppose. But this doesn’t answer the question at all.

Sure, there was a nebulous “bring the player, not the class” class design philosophy change. But, exactly as Ziryus has said:

• There was no change in party composition requirements for 5mans
• There was change in the range of possible raid comp requirements for 10mans, or 25mans
• There was no significant difference of variance in role requirements between fights in Wrath raids compared to TBC. In other words, the number of fights that required fewer or greater tanks or healers didn’t change much at all in Wrath from TBC.

@Redheadchild-kul-tiras

Basically every class got what they lacked in tbc to make them able to fill the role that before was much more spec and class specific. Interupts got put on classes that lacked then, hard CC got put on most classes that lacked them, aoe damage (and threat for tanks) got put on classes that were severely lacking it, buffs and debuffs were normalized and made class baseline and/or given to other classes, the list goes on, but the point being, this made specific specs matter less and focused more on what the role of the spec was.

Eh I guess but I still don’t see how this changes whether fights had more or less of a specific spec requirement. Most classes can’t spec into or out of an interrupt, for example. Druids being the only example I can think of. Rogues, warriors, shamans and mages all have theirs “available” in pve regardless of spec (warlocks kinda but not really, because warlock pets kinda just die anyway in pve so its either no pet or a phase shifted imp). Hunters don’t have an interrupt regardless of spec until silences get pve interrupt effects during wrath.

Sure, a lot of classes got aoe, but the ones that gained decent AOE abilities never really had the option to spec good, many-targeted aoe previously. Not seeing how that impacts the need to spec, either. You could argue combat rogues I s’pose, but a.) all rogues are combat anyway or they’re trolling, b.) it’s cooldown based and and effectiveness depends on the number of targets.

@Redheadchild-kul-tiras

In tbc spec identity was a very big thing, in wotlk, it became role identity, spec no longer being nearly as important compared to the role the spec filled. This role identity is why “bring the player not the class” was used for wotlk.

For classes like druid, spec identity literally IS their role identity. For priests, who have their one and only damage spec, their spec identity is their role identity in that regard. In TBC, as in wrath, for healing priests swap specs as necessary for certain fights, or just stick with a generic cookie cutter healing build.

From personal experience, DPSing as a mage, JUST LIKE in TBC, I didn’t swap specs all that much in wrath. I stayed fire for all of T7. I swapped around a bit in T8, since some fights favoured arcane over fire, but it was kind of a nice to have, probably not necessary to clear content.

[Ziryus-pagle]

@Redheadchild-kul-tiras

@Ziryus-pagle

his claim that you can easily support frequent spec switches with just a few minutes of dailies. That’s barely enough to support a single back and forth swap once.

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 misrepr esenting what I say.

Oh okay so now you are admitting it is not possible to support active respeccing with just a handful of dailies.

Moving goalposts

[Ziryus-pagle]

@Egwyn-arugal

For classes like druid, spec identity literally IS their role identity. For priests, who have their one and only damage spec, their spec identity is their role identity in that regard. In TBC, as in wrath, for healing priests swap specs as necessary for certain fights, or just stick with a generic cookie cutter healing build.

Yeah it’s very typical of pure classes not to understand how specs actually work for hybrid classes. I mean sure when all your specs are just pew pew spec is a little less important.

[Feywaif-atiesh]

@Horace-remulos

This is as absurd as saying “I levelled a warrior but I should have a healing spec!”.

It’s not. Warriors can’t have a healing spec no matter how much gold they have to pay for it. That’s adding a totally new element to the game. A dps warrior can have a prot spec or a pvp spec if they pay the gold. A dps druid or a shadow priest can have a healing spec if they want to pay the gold. Dual spec just makes it a little easier to do what you can already do in the game. It doesn’t add anything new.

@Horace-remulos

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.

This has long been the anti dual speccers argument. Their logic is that because we ask for an easier way to do something we can already do it’s the equivalent of adding something totally new that we could never do. It’s just not logical

[Riger-arugal]

@Egwyn-arugal

For classes like druid, spec identity literally IS their role identity.

Pally I get, a little, but Druids are not much different to warriors in that they have two fundamental roles … well not the same but similar from a talent switching pov - Druids get two roles in one spec. So effectively they only have to worry about switching between two roles as they have a third role baked into one of their other role specs - Feral.

Gear is a far greater limit than spec in terms of fulfilling all three roles.

[Wafectus-deviate-delight]

I’ll exit these premises for now with the notion that the pro outweighed and defeated the con. Not that it matters in the long run I don’t see DS making into the game.

I will say this. You’re only helping Lich King become a more attractive expansion when its time comes.
Depending on your point of view, BC is technically dead. You sure you don’t want to add something that will bring people back after its course has run?

[Riger-arugal]

I liked your post but don’t agree (I don’t think dual spec will bring lots of people back to TBC) but appreciate your points.

I do think it is a large drawcard feature for people into WoTLK and it diminishes the release to release it early in TBC. I just think that TBC has a lot that people into WoTLK don’t like and DS won’t fix that. I maintain I don’t think it fits this version of the game. Adding DS will possibly bring people in for the initial part but they will quit as soon as they have to do attunements or grind primals etc. It might help out with Arena but that has bigger problems imo.

[Horace-remulos]

It’s about choices having consequences. Choosing one class comes at the expense of choosing another class. Just as choosing your professions come at the expense of choosing other professions. And indeed, choosing one spec at the expense of all other specs. This is central to the RPG aspect of WoW’s design philosophy.

You CAN have multiple specs. You can also have multiple professions but you can only have two concurrently to the exclusion of all others. I’m sure you’d agree that you shouldn’t be able to have “Dual-Profs”.

I raised this earlier but take early versions of D&D. You can choose to multiclass but you’ll lose access to your top-level spells and abilities. As a Wizard you can specialise in a school of magic but at the expense of losing access to other schools. You aren’t meant to be able to do everything, all the time.

[Riger-arugal]

@Feywaif-atiesh

This has long been the anti dual speccers argument.

Last I heard Horace was not elected the spokesperson for the entire group of people who don’t want Dual spec in TBC classic.

Rumour on the street has it that some of them have their own opinions on things … heck, I’d be willing to bet that even Horace doesn’t consult the committee of #nochanges before commenting and offering his views …

[Horace-remulos]

@Riger-arugal

Last I heard Horace was not elected the spokesperson for the entire group of people who don’t want Dual spec in TBC classic.

Don’t remind me. I had the votes but somebody challenged the veracity of the election, and now we’ve been swamped in red tape and haven’t had the chance to have a recount.

[Riger-arugal]

@Horace-remulos

I had the votes but somebody challenged the veracity of the election, and now we’ve been swamped in red tape and haven’t had the chance to have a recount.

Yes well I think the view is you’ve been going a bit rogue and speaking out of turn … tutt tutt.

The #nochanges hive mind really needs to police this stuff better…

Darn hanging chads …

[Horace-remulos]

@Riger-arugal

The #nochanges hive mind really needs to police this stuff better…

Shhh, you’re not supposed to talk about the Supreme Overlord in public!

[Feywaif-atiesh]

@Riger-arugal

Last I heard Horace was not elected the spokesperson for the entire group of people who don’t want Dual spec in TBC classic.

It’s not just Horace. I could find several people who have made a similar argument. If you haven’t seen it it’s because you’re not reading the threads thoroughly or you’re spinning because they’re on you’re team.

[Riger-arugal]

@Feywaif-atiesh

. If you haven’t seen it it’s because you’re not reading the threads thoroughly or you’re spinning because they’re on you’re team.

Or, it’s not an argument I’ve seen much of and not one I would make. Who knew there’s nuance and variation in opinions!!! Even among those who broadly agree … outrageous!

[Feywaif-atiesh]

@Riger-arugal

it’s not an argument I would make

Did I claim every single person who has ever posted on the forums against adding dual spec has made that argument? No, of course not, you just exaggerated what I said rather than deal with it in a good faith way. There are certain arguments that are very common among most against dual spec, others less so. Just as there are certain arguments that are common among those in favor of adding it and other less so. That really should be obvious but you prefer to spin to attack rather than engage in a rational dialog. Then you pretend you’re above it all.

[Horace-remulos]

@Riger-arugal

Who knew there’s nuance and variation in opinions!!!

Not once I finish the device…

[Riger-arugal]

@Horace-remulos

Not once I finish the device

You’re starting to sca … uh ya yes great overlord.

[Zipzo-atiesh]

I see value in setting an “arena talent tree” for whenever you’re in an arena.

I see no value in making free what was designed to cost gold every time you choose to do it, intentionally.

The buy in cost of the feature, nor the irrelevant mention that you still need to pay to respec one of your two trees (this basically will almost never happen for most players using dual spec) comes even close to matching this intended overall cost for those who want to switch often.

[Riger-arugal]

Oh come on. You consistently make it like political parties where one side is in coalition diametrically opposed to the other and the desire is to win over the voting public at all costs.

When in reality it is one dude has a video game preference the other dude doesn’t share and a lot of different dudes fit in somewhere on that spectrum of thinking the desired feature is a good idea or not. And there’s some loosely defined grouping based on broad preferences. There is no voting public - the devs don’t read this stuff (especially not when it gets this toxic).

[Wafectus-deviate-delight]

@Riger-arugal

• the devs don’t read this stuff.

You think they don’t but they do.