No. I actually don’t know.
My position is that it has no upsides. And like any change may have downsides - there’s risk.
So that’s why we justify changes and don’t just “give it a whirl”.
By the way I have offered up potential “downsides” but that has never been my core argument. They’re risk factors.
You’re position is that any change you want (and not the ones you don’t want) should be added in if there’s no provable downside. Convenient but absurd.
What you consider “authentic to TBC” may not be what blizzard considers “authentic to TBC.” It may mean something different to the devs than it means to you. They clearly considered changing the arena start point from 1500 to zero to be a good change or else why would they do it? How does that fit into your view of what is “authentic to TBC”?
That’s always a great approach to public forums that are meant for player-to-player discussion.
Yes, and noticed how the changes that have made it through were mostly justified and had very good reasons behind them?
And then you have dual spec, which its supporters have failed to justify. That’s why their changes were considered and this one has yet to even be acknowledged.
Part of it is the lack of arguments, the other part is your approach. 
Most of the others supporting dual spec have left as well because you three and bullied them out of the thread. Only a few care enough to put up with you three’s bs
Okay, explain what those risks actually are.
The benefits have been clearly explained, so what are the actual risks?
What was the reason for changing the arena starting points from 1500 to zero?
I actually have never attacked anyone that didn’t attack me first. And never claimed it invalidated their position. I don’t even claim that your attacks invalidate your position. But they’re tactics and not argument. They don’t help establish your position at all.
Stop pretending that your play is my play lol. It’s totally transparent.
It was for a better reason than “I personally would find it fun and I don’t want to farm gold anymore.”
Thanks for the reply
Well yes when we look through the layers of transparency #nochanges is at the heart of your reasons for not wanting dual spec.
I actually say the same thing. I see you as using that as a pretense. /shrug.
Really? But for some reason you can’t articulate it.
Change is always a risk. Especially in creative industries where user experience cannot be boiled down to a mathematical equation, and the creators themselves often don’t know exactly why consumers enjoy their product. It’s not like changing a system to make the user interface objectively more intuitive to navigate. It’s subjective, about the consumers’ tastes and preferences.
Look at all the threads of people who wanted fresh servers and/or Classic Plus. Now look at how many of them are hating on SoM and (allegedly) cancelling their subs because they don’t like it. Likewise, for every thing we hate about Retail, at some meeting or another the design changes were on paper as a nominally good ideas with no foreseeable downsides. It’s so, so easy and common in business to be oblivious to why things work and don’t work, and you only realise you’ve made a mistake after you’ve changed it.
Dual Spec is antithetical to the design of the game. It’s a risk to implement because it is a direction change from the intent of the game, and therefore requires a compelling use case to implement.
Same-faction BGs is a great example of a change that was antithetical to the game design but was implemented due to having a strong business need (excessive queue times threaten the longevity of the game because intended features were not available to players). I’d argue that Dual Spec does not have as compelling a use case since constant re-speccing is actually the opposite of what the devs intended, and users are self-inflicting the pain upon themselves by using the product the wrong way.
In addition to this, making the money to respec requires such trivial effort that anyone who honestly complains about it is immediately outing themselves as people who barely play the game as it stands…so why exactly would Blizzard feel compelled to cater to those types of players?
If it requires such a trivial effort it’s not much of a deterrent to respeccing and adding dual spec is merely a trivial qol change. You can’t logically have it both ways. It can’t be a trivial effort to pay to respec and a major change in game play when the trivial respec cost is eliminated
When you know that something is not much different to the other thing why change it?
See, this is what is being missed. YOU are building the case for change. YOU have to establish grounds for why.
Building a case and rejecting a case are not equivalent goals.
“I don’t like it” is sufficient reason to reject it. “I like it” is not sufficient reason to add it. It can be a reason to consider it though.
I mean when his most compelling reason for adding dual spec is that anyone who doesn’t agree with his agenda of adding it is a liar…
Well, that the effort is trivial is technically just my opinion. Clearly it isn’t trivial for everyone, and that’s honestly the [current] spec system doing exactly what it’s supposed to do, locking the lazy people out of getting everything they want.
You’re being filtered, and that’s actually kind of the whole point.
Because we think it will improve the game with no down side. We’ve explained how many times. Here is one way it improves a game that is focused on groups to complete content when it’s already difficult to find those groups.
The downside is that it makes TBCC less like TBC, and it reduces spec value, explained exactly as the blues back then stated.
I don’t care if you call that a #nochanges argument, it’s still a legitimate concern when the aim of the product is to be like an already transpired and known product.
Are you attempting to imply that the blues back then were simply wrong about their reasons for not adding it?
I’ve already outlined that from my own experience in Wrath I don’t believe it will achieve any of those things. It won’t meaningfully alleviate Tank shortages.
It gives you precisely two choices. As we discovered two isn’t enough.
Some will spec a PvP spec others a supplemental spec in the same role (trash clearing versus single target etc…).
If the goal is to alleviate Tank shortage we already know that a more flexible talent system combined with role adaptive gear would be needed.
My argument (which you ignored) was that the retail talent system would be better for the goals you present. I don’t think dual spec is fit for purpose. It was tried and it failed (that’s why it got replaced).
What’s funny is, you keep raising these same point and my reply hasn’t changed. You claim I never gave a reply and of course that’s demonstrably false.