He’s also making the false assumption that blizzard weights all those points equally for all changes.
But that’s to be expected from someone who thinks all changes are the same.
It’s consequences related.
Spending gold is the current major consequence of changing spec. If that remains in tact, then talent/action bars profiles (which are already doable with addons) are fine to be added to the base game.
My end goal is to end disingenuous arguments, where someone is clearly lying to try and prove their point. I have seen these posters go from opinion to opinion, objectively bad interpretation of facts, ignoring evidence, and ultimately acceptance of things while maintaining their subjective desires. This is all bad faith debating.
They just want to feel important contributing to the conversation, pooping up threads where people are asking for things (which is their absolute right to do) and diverting the conversation away from meaningful discussion about the actual topic, into their (a la corpseknife) entitled desire for a faithful recreation.
They aren’t actually seeing the bigger picture, or understanding why something is the way it is. Zipzo has literally quoted the battle chicken nerf thread as proof that blizzard isn’t making changes, and said that they were not going to nerf battle chicken. In the same thread that he/she quoted, Blizzard literally says that they were going to make the decision in 2022. This means they haven’t made a decision, but Zipzo represented it as if they had made the decision. How is this acceptable to anyone, to have someone flat out lying to try and prove their point?
That’s the kind of stuff I hate, and I will call it out when I see it.
Cool, so you and I are on the same page as far as Dual Spec.
They can add in player profiles to the base UI (because blizzards ongoing intentions with WoW have always been to where possible integrate things like this).
They keep the gold cost in, to maintain the consequence of spec changing, which is what I’ve always said I really don’t care one way or the other about.
So as I’ve stated before, now we have 2 people who were against dual spec now OK with:
TBCC Dual Spec (Player Profiles) which is WotLK dual spec, without removing the gold cost for respeccing.
Right?
List these changes then. I’ll discuss them on a topic by topic discussion.
Is this wotlkc or tbcc?
Which is it?
Because wotlkc should be designed with a respect for wotlk design goal intentions. Which includes having dual spec.
Tbcc however has clear evidence that dual spec would go against tbc design goal intentions.
I hope you can see how people view this position as “#nochanges” or “committed to an authentic faithful recreation”. In this later blue post blizz affirmed your position as a guiding principle.
HOWEVER, that same blue post included several changes that were not in the spirit of original tbc. Additionally, blizz has already made several SIGNIFICANT changes to the game that weren’t in the spirit of original tbc.
Blizz also clarified in this latest blue post that they will consider community feedback for changes.
Given all of this, what is the largest determining factor for whether or not blizz will make a change?
Is it authentic to original tbc? Or does the majority of the community want the change?
In my opinion, blizz has clearly shown it will make changes that are not in the spirit of og tbc if the community overwhelmingly wants it.
Never said they are weighed equally.
Just that they each have a weight value in their decision making.
And it failed 3/4 of those weights (and I’m sure there is more than 4 total weights, but these are the most obvious ones, outside of cost/time it would take to make the change) with the 4th one that it might pass being questionable due to the only evidence on it is open online polls that are easily distorted.
I simply don’t believe PvP changes to be very impactful to the rest of the game, so changes on that front do not spell some kind of overarching message about how they would feel about a change like adding dual spec.
This assumes Blizzard sees it the same way I do, of course, but that’s why I keep reiterating on their words on how authenticity matters to them.
I don’t believe PvP changes really affects authenticity, unless it involved class rebalancing or something or things that would seriously affect people on PvP servers outside of PvP places.
We are OK with a VERY modified version of dual spec. But when most people talk about dual spec, they are thinking wotlk version, not this modified version of still costing gold to use.
His entire argument is semantics.
2 Likes
We have already done this and I believe you justified the following:
-
paid level boost with the recruit a friend program. I don’t think that’s a fair comparison at all.
-
warpstalker mount. TCG mounts used to be in the game. I guess I’ll give you that one since it’s just a cosmetic.
-
same faction bg’s. Game was unplayable for horde (I think that was your justification). Completely against the spirit of og wow though as it’s a faction called faction game.
When you do things like justify every change made so far but say dual spec is too far because we must stay committed to “an authentic faithful recreation” it makes your position confusing for some.
This is TBCC and can be better. Dual spec being one of the changes they SHOULD add.
We know have 15 years of prior knowledge about raid encounters, BiS gear, consumables, we now have guides for everything (guides existed since always, but not as good as they are now). We have a cash shop, we have honor changes, we have other team working on the dev side.
What authenticity are you even talking about?
Never Going to Let You Down!
Well no it only fails 2, originally developer design, and authenticity. Of course those should really be rolled into one since they’re the same thing.
Does it solve a problem? Well that depends on whether blizzard thinks lack of player engagement caused by lack of dual spec is a problem. So that’s a 50/50 one way or the other.
As for does the playerbase want it? Yeah the majority would want it.
So we’ll say based on your scale it’s 1.5/1.5. And blizzard would be the wild card.
Most that play this game with pvp as their main focus would disagree with you.
They have already completely gutted the original tbc arena rating and gearing system in season 1.
you’ve already acknowledged it but I’ll point it out again, dual spec was introduced with spec swapping for pvp vs pve as the stated example of the problem it was solving.
Let me try to clear this up for you.
To us, it is in incredibly bad faith to put dual spec on the same pedestal as the changes we’ve “justified”.
Dual spec is the only one out of all those other changes to have explicit developer rejection in its portfolio.
Do you see any blue posts talking about how they will definitively never allow horde to go against horde in TBC? What about explicit rejection to mounts from 3rd party purchases/content? What about the paid level boost?
Can you find me any developer insight on how changes in this vein would be OK or acceptable, or explicitly denied as never going to happen due to design concerns?
You can’t. Dual spec is elevated above the other changes in that sense. It is special, and thus, especially unacceptable, unlike the other changes that have happened that have earned their right to stay in the gray area since Blizzard has never offered such strong words for them as they have historically for dual spec.
Do you understand now? We find your conflation between dual spec and the other changes made to be disingenuous and in bad faith, and thus we don’t particularly feel our argument is harmed by them making changes like this.
It also has explicit developer approval, since you know they added it to the game.
Almost like developers can change their opinions and it’s more important to be able to form your own than just parrot what developers have said.
Yeah, developer opinions definitely do change when the team is made up of different people.
I want the vision of the TBC team. Not the WOTLK one.
Also, again you are happily ignoring what they thought about dual spec after the fact. Convenient for you. Oh, but then you will just say you don’t care about GC’s opinion (lead systems designer during his tenure) anyway.
Oh Ziryus, flip-flopping wherever you need to, cute.
Paid boosts were comparable to recruit a friend, actually RaF was far more exploitable for getting multiple toons to high levels fast. The paid boost is one character to 58. RaF would help you level your entire account to lvl 60s.
The paid boosts are a change, but the design goal intentions of RaF was to help get people’s friends into the game. The paid boost is a less exploitable version of that. Yes it was in part a money grab from blizzard. But it was also in lone with the design goal intentions that RaF had in tbc.
I don’t think it was a good change, but it at least (in part) respected origional design goal intentions.
They made changes to pvp in tbc to make pvp BGs easier to get into by trying to make more games available for the BG with the longest queue times (AV reinforcement mechanics). They also made changes to pvp gear throughout tbc to make entering ovp more accessible (reduced cost on last season gear, the sunwell patch for catchup pvp gear, new pvp dailies, exc). So there was an active attempt to increase pvp participation which included trying to reduce queue times (again AV changes) by making more games available (in this case preventing extremely long games in AV). So FvF being added wasn’t entirely against the design goal intentions. It was against the design goal intentions of faction separation, but it was in kine with the design goal intentions of making pvp more accessible and available to the more casual players. It also fixed 2 legitimate issues. It fixed the difference in gearing rates for entry pvp gear for AvH (alliance were able to gear much faster at the time, even using a lose to win strategy) and it fixed some horde not even being able to attempt to pvo due to not having the time to wait in a queue for an hour+ to do ONE BG.
And again, I’m not saying I like these changes, but they were able to pass more than just 1 of the 4 weighing factors I listed before.