They never added it to tbc, it was added to wotlk. It will be in wotlkc.
But even after it was added the devs saw that it did in fact have negative impacts on some of the games aspects.
It’s also better suited for wotlk because of how class, specs, raid buffs, exc changed.
Since you seem to have trouble understanding how much changed from tbc to wotlk, I think the above video might help.
You’ve been asked to explain why any of that makes dual spec incompatible with TBC mechanics.
You refuse to do so.
No freaking duh they added the lich king, that’s hardly required for dual spec to function properly. Kind of like how dual spec kept working just fine in Cata and worked just fine pre Northrend.
No one is ignoring that? It gets added in WotLK.
Try making a actual point in your reply.
(Ment for Ziryus)
It’s been explained, you refuse to even acknowledge it.
You have flat out refused to explain in detail what mechanics in TBC make dual spec incompatible.
You should be able to say here’s X Y or Z mechanic in TBC that changed in Wrath and this is why it won’t work with dual spec.
In TBC, the design intention is still familiar to that of classic, where spec choice is supposed to be an impactful decision that affords a level of commitment necessary, with respeccing only available as an “oopsie” or an infrequently utilized option to fix or change your spec choice with some permanence. That was the entire reason they made the cost rise if you respecced too many times within a certain duration of time.
Dual spec reduces the impact of, if not completely negates, this intended design framework.
Therefore, dual spec is a feature that actively diminishes one of the key intended experiences of TBC, and is thus not a viable option for TBC modification in the realm of changes meant to “improve” it for modern players, because doing so essentially breaks a key intended aspect of TBC to begin with, and the reason a lot of us are here in the first place is to experience TBC as it was in all of its intended design as closely as is achievable, not a custom fun-server akin to a private server with lots of little gidgets and gadgets layered over a TBC sandbox.
That’s not a specific mechanic, that is you simply saying it wasn’t in TBC originally. IE #nochanges.
Again with the strawman of dismissing an argument that isn’t nochanges, as nochanges.
One day you might have enough IQ to understand the difference.
Except that’s what it is, her argument is just it wasn’t in TBC originally.
She has not explained why it would actually be bad in TBC Classic from a game play standpoint. I understand that her position is #nochanges and she just wants a pure nostalgia experience.
What?
My “argument” (more like objective fact) is that the existence of dual spec reduces the impact of spec choice.
How is this a no changes argument? Like, I’m begging you, please explain how you keep coming to this conclusion. It’s depressing me.
No, the argument is it goes against intention design goals of tbc.
It’s not about the exact design of the game. Nochanges is about not changing the exact design and has nothing to do with going directly against the design goal intentions, nochanges it about the exact design.
Maybe dumbing down this explanation will help you.
Nochanges= exact design shouldn’t be changed.
The argument you are claiming is no changes isn’t about the exact design, it’s about the intentions behind those designs being respected and not going directly against them.
I bolded key words to try and help you understand.
Which is not an actual game play mechanic, just some random opinion of yours, which you can only back up with “that’s not how it was in TBC”
I mean, this damage to spec identity was GC opinion as well.
Which holds far more importance than your opinion.
I don’t consider GC’s opinion on anything a holy grail.
I think I might understand the line of logic you’re using to constantly come to this conclusion.
You believe that any support, no matter the source justification, for a feature that works the way it did in original TBC, is #nochanges.
This is a flawed protocol.
I don’t present you with the idea that dual specs reduces the impact of spec choice as a correlated concern to that of preventing a change just for preventing-a-change’s sake.
I am presenting this idea because I believe spec choice should matter, and thus anything that is done to counteract that, I do not agree with being added.
Person A: doesn’t want to reduce the impact of spec choice.
This is me.
Person B: doesn’t want any changes from original TBC at all
This is a #nochanges person.
While the goal for both results in no dual spec, that doesn’t mean the arguments are the same. This isn’t good rationale, Ziryus, this is very poor argumentation. It makes zero sense if you apply it to other situations too.
Ex:
Person A: doesn’t want an aquarium in the office because fish scare them.
Person B: doesn’t want an aquarium in the office because they don’t want to clean it.
Ziryus: both of you just don’t want an aquarium because you don’t want to clean it.
You see, person A wants the same thing as person B, but for different reasons. They both are aligned in terms of the ultimate goal, yes, but their reasons are not the same. You could also say that person A probably also wouldn’t want to clean it, because as clarified, fish scare them, but it is not their main reason.
You are having an extreme amount of difficulty making a distinction between a no changes argument and anything else because you believe that as long as the ultimate goal is to not have dual spec, the argument cannot be anything other than no changes, and I think I’ve done a decent job illustrating how this is faulty logic and a very poor assessment technique.
I went to far too much effort to make sense of this for you, and I know it will be wasted, but at least I can say I tried.
It’s not a holy grail, but considering he is a very successful game designer and you aren’t…his opinion is far more valid than yours, as his opinion is more important than mine.
Basically you are trying to say you know better than the person who made it their career to know a subject, when you know very little on the subject.
“One of the great challenges in life is knowing enough to think you’re right but not enough to know you’re wrong”
Neil deGrasse Tyson
You have achieved this challenge in terms of dual spec and game design for tbcc. So grats on that.
I have a good amount of faith in the idea that if we respect the original designers intentions and goals with TBC in our approach to TBCC, that TBCC will be a much more realistic TBC experience. That’s really what it comes down to.
Now the reason these arguments don’t work on Ziryus and others, is because they actively detest the original design. They hate TBC, and would see many parts of it removed or disfigured before it’s a product they truly like. They have no respect for the original design intention, it’s unimportant to their goal in TBC which is to feel a tailored experience within a TBC sandbox that is suited for their particular tastes.
They aren’t here to relive it or re-experience an old game design era, they are here to revamp it and make it something it never was for their own enjoyment.
It’s selfishness at its peak, and obviously disrespectful to the actual product and the intention of the product. Maybe even disrespectful to the original designers.
Were the original TBC designers perfect/was TBC a perfect game? Absolutely not. The point of TBCC though isn’t to perfect the TBC design and formula, it’s to experience it. That’s it.
I’m not analyzing motivation, I’m analyzing end result. Your reasoning could be “I don’t want dual spec because I genuinely believe the game is better with out” or “I just want pure nostalgia even though I know the game would be better with dual spec” or “I flipped a coin this morning and it came up tails so no dual spec”.
At the end of the day those all result in the same thing, you picking a #nochanges position on this particular topic at least. As such this analogy is fundamentally flawed.
What is really is is,
Person A: doesn’t want an aquarium in the office because fish scare them.
Person B: doesn’t want an aquarium in the office because they don’t want to clean it.
Ziryus: both of you just don’t want an aquarium
So then you are a nochanger because you don’t support mythic+?
Ziryus is no changes guys, so he doesn’t actually want dual spec in tbcc, he’s just a hypocrite saying he wants dual spec when he is actually nochanges.
Lol, the fact you can so confidently say this as though it’s a good thing is terrifying.
So if the end result is the same between two completely different opinions, you think the best approach is to counter argue with arguments that don’t even apply to the reasoning presented in one of those opinions?
You have a decent argument against nochanges. The devs said they would (and have) make changes. Boom. Good counter argument to the idea that there shouldn’t be any changes.
That Blizz said they would make some tweaks/change things does not counter the concern that dual spec reduces the impact of spec choice, all it does is make it seem like you are miscomprehending the argument entirely, and it just goes in circles.
Why not come up with an appropriate counter argument to the idea that the impact of spec choice is reduced with dual spec, instead of citing a counter argument that only works against a completely different argument?
I mean, I know why it’s difficult for you to do that, because Blizzard literally said themselves that dual spec does this, so you’re basically armchair game dev-ing at that point, but nobody is telling you to take that position, you’re doing that of your own volition.
Ziryus, my dude, you need a strong lesson in reasoning & logic. I can’t even imagine you in the work place. You just be literally immune to all forms of criticism.