So you would support adding in the capability to have dual spec as long as people still had to pay 50g to swap? I’m in.
2 Likes
If it docked you 50g everytime you used it, honestly, I’d meet you in the middle on that maybe. I think there is extra additional annoyance-value out of needing to go to a trainer to do it but I feel like if the gold cost remained it’s nearly almost the same effect on the weight of your chosen spec.
…but you’ll find no such compliance to that idea from others who want dual spec here lol
1 Like
You claim some people who support dual spec support all changes. I see zero evidence of that. You could prove me wrong by simply quoting someone who supports dual spec that posted something that clearly indicated they were for #allchanges. I spend a lot of energy pulling quotes from other threads to support my opinions, probably more than any other person here. I don’t think it’s inappropriate to ask others to do it occasionally.
I’m all for people being able to play the game, and won’t represent my opinion differently anywhere. People don’t want to have to spend 10-15 minutes moving stuff around when their pals are looking for a tank or healer - I think they’d just rather not play.
Baby steps.
1 Like
Why so you can spring another trap.
You want me to prove that people are nuanced and have different views? lol nah man go away.
You’re misquoting too. I clarified that to some people supporting only changes they personally want. What you’re doing now is picking a fight because compromise was in the air again - can’t have that nooo.
Every comment is a trap for you to abuse.
1 Like
I get the inclination to just…want more people playing at any cost, even if it hurts the authenticity.
It comes down to how we view TBCC as a product, maybe.
I view TBCC as something of a museum-style product where you pay your sub (entry fee) and then you can buzz around in an old world of forgotten elements that are no longer in that state on retail servers.
If you view it through that lens, the betterment of player feelings sort of falls to the wayside for me because to me the goal isn’t to maximize enjoyment of a 2022 playerbase on a 2007 MMO sandbox, it’s to preserve the old-era approach to the games design for those who liked “the old days” better.
So changing it to better suit your desires comes off as people who aren’t the target audience trying to modify the product for themselves even though they aren’t even really the target audience to begin with.
I’d align with this view if the majority of the people who are playing the game weren’t playing it as their main game, hadn’t seen the capabilities from future expansions, or if they weren’t playing it for the first time.
Unfortunately people are playing TBC for the first time, they are playing it as their primary game, and they have seen what’s possible.
They gave alliance seal of blood. The exhibit is ruined. We need to sweep the dust off so people want to pay the entry fee, and add astronaut ice cream to the gift shop.
1 Like
No, you’re avoiding again because you know you’re wrong. This is what you do. You attack and then avoid when you’re called out. You claimed some who support dual spec are also all changes. That’s incorrect and I think you know it. So prove it. Find one person who supports dual spec that posted something that clearly shows the also basically all changes.
No I’m calling you out as setting up a trap to cause a fight over nothing. It’s a distraction and a ploy.
You’re not asking anything constructive, your claiming I said something I didn’t and asking me to prove it. For the sole purpose of showing me to be aggressive and disinguenuous. Basically you didn’t like the constructive direction the discussion was heading so have reverted to trashing the rep of people in it.
You and Zyrius pull that stunt like clockwork.
Responding to either of you is always a trap.
I call this “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.
I know where you’re coming from, I just don’t agree.
Additionally, what is the appeal of season of mastery through your view? Season of Mastery is meant to be “the old stuff with all the changes you think would make it better!”.
That appeal is blurred when you’re trying to add things that are ideally season of mastery-esque “improvements” to the “authentic” one.
Then you just have a game with “some changes” and another with “same thing but even more changes”, as opposed to “relatively authentic” and “changing things to make an interesting version of this expansion”…I’m curious what your opinion is on what SoM’s purpose is.
I’m saying that adding dual spec to TBCC in a sense devalues a potential TBC SoM, or even WOTLK itself because it desensitizes the audience to something that could be a headlining or defining feature of those experiences.
I don’t think it’s a fight over nothing. I see it as an unjustified attack that has no basis in reality. What leads you to believe that some who support dual spec are basically #all changes? It’s a fair question. You’re avoiding answering it because there is no evidence in any post to justify your attack. Each time you avoid the question I’m more convinced you are malicious and deceptive.
What leads you to believe that some who don’t support dual spec is always against all changes? It’s a fair question
It’s actually not, it’s an unfair loaded question based on obvious misreadings of your posts, just like your trap question.
Done with your obvious traps.
For the record why don’t you level your question at Corps - he’s the one who made the claim you’re wrongly leveling at me. Why? Because that would be honest wouldn’t it. Not your bag.
I mean, again. This is not authentic TBC, alliance have seal of blood. The blinders behind the implications here astound me, and I mean that with all due respect. Changing the way a class is played is absolutely gigantic. Changing batching was gigantic for pvp rogues. Breaking the hunter macro was gigantic for them. None of these are keeping with authenticity. You cannot in good conscience maintain the authenticity argument.
There is no “just authentic enough.”
I personally have no interest in SoM, as I just played classic. There were not enough changes for me to make it a new game after I’d spent so much time in classic.
1 Like
Addon called talented.
Your welcome.
2 Likes
There are apparently some number of people who replayed vanilla over and over and over again on private servers. SoM is an attempt to sell them subscriptions. That’s all. Any changes made are made to try to appeal to that segment of the player base, those who want to play the same game over and over and over and over and over and over…
There’s a theory that most of those who played classic came from private servers. I doubt it’s true but Blizzard may have bought in to that theory. It appears that most want to progress and no changes would have gotten them to replay the same game so soon after they played it. It was all about the p-server players and not about people who wanted this change or that change.
It’s now a trap to ask you to support your accusations with one single quote. /whatever
1 Like
just dont join a guild who wants you to switch out specs for each boss
It’s not my claim. You asking me to support it is a herring.
You’re fabricating a narrative in order to remove a player from the ring via discrediting them. Jig is up. People are onto you.
I made a very different and more conciliatory claim than what you’re claiming I made. But this is all about you inventing a narrative to remove people from the conversation that inconvenience your aims…
If you were being honest you’d be asking the person who made the claim your question. I quoted that person, remember? Of course you do. You really take people for idiots don’t you.
1 Like
I don’t see a false accusation as conciliatory because you only made the false accusation against “some” players. I still see it as a false accusation.
That person isn’t worth even making the slightest attempt to talk to. His posts are 90% insults. I get involved when someone agrees with his insults and baseless accusations
1 Like
Okay so to be clear,
You attributed to me a comment someone else made because I quoted them in agreement but clarified my own different and less extreme understanding of that. You then used this misattributed quote from a claim someone else made to claim that I’m being disingenuine.
… Rich that is.
You didn’t target the actual person who made the claim because it didn’t serve your purpose in derailing the positive direction of the discussion at that time. Traps and ploys.
1 Like