Being less extreme doesn’t make something right or good. It still might be wrong and bad.
I told you exactly why I didn’t talk to the person with the more extreme view. Some people are too extreme to even bother with. For example I won’t even try to talk to a Qanon believer or an antivaxer. They’re a lost cause as far as I’m concerned.
to be frank… I don’t have any interest in doing any content outside of raiding due to the, in my opinion, prohibitive cost of changing speccs.
So… I’m basically just raid logging and chatting with people, and only coming online when people need healers in dungeons (Assuming one of the half dozen other healers isn’t involved)
There’s no point in my farming, because killing anything as restoration is a 15 second ordeal as restoration and is so mind bogglingly slow I just can’t do it.
But I don’t see a reason to waste gold swapping to “Farm” when I can just stick to what I currently have and just don’t worry about it. 
Probably could engage more if I had access to an off specc, but there just is not enough incentives to do so with the cost.
I also find the prospect of spending 1,000 gold once. To be far superior to spending potentially far more from repeated incremental charges.
That’s nice.
You’ll get it in wrath.
Or possibly in TBC depending on what blizzard decides 
I also have a bridge to sell you 
Don’t forget to let him know the real selling point.
It comes with dual spec alized suspension.
The word he used was impactful, not bad. Reading comprehension. The fact that you went on to say the spell “literally decides whether Ret paladins are even usable in PvE” means you might as well have just replied with “I agree” lmao
Something can be impactful while also not ruining the authenticity.
Uhhh… not sure how you can argue that with a straight face.
Here’s another example. The decision to use 2.4.3 talents out the gate, instead of a progressing system of talent iterations, had a huge impact for mages. In tier 4 this time around I could literally yolo blink into packs of mobs and dragon’s breath/blastwave/arcane explosion, because I had iceblock baseline, something I didn’t have until Black Temple patch in original TBC.
In arenas both last season and this season, you literally saw 4 arcane mage/1 healer specs that straight up would have never worked in original TBC seasons 1 and 2. The play style involves them just blinking in and aoe’ing your entire team down. That never worked in Season 1 originally because you could straight out-dps the mages back, seeming as they didn’t have iceblock and frost mages did. And they lacked the 20% GCD haste from icy veins, which also didn’t exist.
Similarly the addition of hypothermia (not added until mid TBC) completely changed the frost mage playstyle. Icy veins too.
Was it a bad decision? Hard to say, maybe not - it opened up more specs to being viable, and we may have arrived at the more “balanced” iteration of the game
Did it completely change the authenticity of the game? Of course it did. It’s not even a debate.
You’re trying to force me in to a flawed argument over the idea that the game can’t attempt or claim to be authentic unless it is literally exactly the way the game was in literally every way.
Obviously it is impossible for this to happen, but they can try and that is/was really the entire point of Classic/TBCC.
Does adding dual spec make TBCC more authentic or less when compared to the original? The answer is simple. I know it. You know it.
Authenticity is relative, and in a reality where complete, literal, full mimicry is not really possible due to a variety of factors, the idea is to get it as close as is feasible.
Blizzard has even recently talked about how they are attempting to keep things authentic.
You might have all the disagreements in the world with the concept of authenticity in this particular context, but honestly I think “the game already isn’t authentic” is a red herring argument, because I believe you know what is meant by “authenticity”, and what the relative idea is when that’s the stated goal, in this particular context.
You just want something added at any cost, and think it’s a good got’cha argument, so you’ll stoop to whatever bar you need to do to distort the meaning of authenticity in this context to mean whatever it needs to mean for dual spec to be an inevitability, but at the end of the day, there will be a reason Blizzard didn’t add it.
You’ll have to reconcile with that.
And at the same time they said they were taking a different philosophy from a purely authentic creation because it’s not what modern players want.
It was authentic, but it’s not what modern players want. The community today is so different from what the community was back in 2007 that it had us take a different philosophy with Burning Crusade, where we actually started to allow ourselves to make some changes that were in the best interests of the players that will continue to develop alongside the community.
So at the end of the day all you have is that your opinion on how authentic dual spec is is actually entirely subjective.
And as for we want it, well yes, a lot of people feel it would improve their gameplay experience for various reason(so it’s not just a random we want it). And like it or not blizzard can, will and has multiple times made changes for TBC Classic for that reason, as they don’t consider #nochanges a valid argument anymore.
And that’s something you’ll have to reconcile. And while you might have done some mental gymnastics to justify how the changes they’ve already made are fine(which obviously others feel far exceed dual spec in terms of scope) but somehow dual spec isn’t, that’s entirely subjective on your send.
Nope.
We have evidence that the origional devs didn’t find it authentic enough that they considered it going in the opposite direction of where they wanted to go with the game for tbc.
It’s not our words and opinions backing this up.
It’s blizzards.
If by my opinion you meant Blizzard’s opinion, then yeah, that’s what we have, and it’s 100% all that is needed. What Blizzard thought about everything in TBC is what decides the authenticity of anything in TBCC.
That’s kind of how it works.
That is, until the alliance complain and get Seal of Blood for alliance and throw authenticity out the window, which never existed at all in tbc.
So what your saying is. One change justifies all changes.
So should we add deathknights to tbcc?
If your feeling is that adding Death Knights would have an equivalent benefit, and have the same effect on pvp and pve gameplay and balance as adding dual spec, then absolutely.
Obviously you’re being silly and they are nowhere near the same thing. Your post count tells me you’re a professional poop stirrer, so I probably shouldn’t have even responded.
Nah you don’t get to twist it like that.
You’re the guys saying “blizzard don’t put unauthentic things in the game.”
We said, yes they do: x, y and z are already in the game.
You: “well then they have to put every change from retail in to put one more change in.”
Nah. Pretty sure blizzard don’t have to abide by your rules. They can continue to selectively add unauthentic changes to TBCC as they have done continuously over the past 7 months and almost certainly will.
Track record, champ.
Alliance didn’t “complain” for seal of blood. It was one of the pre-launch announced changes that the community had no input on.
You’re seeking consistency on the worst of or arbitrary of hills.
Is seal of blood on alliance authentic? No, it isn’t.
When a change happens, we either make the decision to keep playing or don’t. When a change is proposed, it’s either authentic, or it isn’t.
Would dual spec be a change that maintains authenticity? No.
Would I keep playing if they added it? Idk, probably?
Does that mean I just want it added? No.
Does any of this mean it will get added? No x1000.
Jesus christ
Edit: might as well pop the whole quote in there, it’s such a good response to whenever you post a rebuttal to this argument that literally no one has made.