Every change is the next step to retail

Longevity of the game, you mean people trivialities content even more to consume the content faster by being able to be far more optimized for content (example shadow bolt speced lock vs seed of corruption lock spec based on single target or aoe fight, this isn’t even going into optimizing tanks and healers per fight as well…) with no time or gold lost mid raid?

So you think a change that will increase the content consumption rate of pve (and pvp) will improve the LONGEVITY of the game…

I’m not the one basing my views on emotions here…

You’re my hero!

Everquest was the game for the top 10% of mmo gamers. World of Warcraft were for the players who dropped out, because they couldn’t keep up. World of Warcraft was designed for casual gamers.

I disagree. Games should be mindless fun. Real life is where you should find challenge, and work towards improvement. When the servers shutdown; all of your achievements would have been nothing but a waste of days and years. The “in-game community” wasn’t eroded away because of group and raid finders; FF14 has both, and the community is stronger than anything WoW has ever had. Gatekeeping raid/dungeon content by other players should never be a thing. If other players don’t want to join your guild, that’s an issue for your guild. The issue is not with the players who don’t want to be around you.

Guilds are both obsolete and the heralds of gameplay stagnation.

Most of the arguments are implementation specific, and the pro Dual spec brigade have a habit of brushing implementation concerns off.

For instance, if the Dual spec that you want is instance locked so you can’t switch specs in the same lockout it will probably only end up having a flavour impact and no real game play impact. It’s not the authentic TBC experience but it’s fairly benign.

However if the implementation allows you to switch specs within a given lockout that will have game play implications and it will effect raid composition choices. It will change the way people play.

Examples of game play implications have been given including class stacking and boss hamming etc but get brushed aside on the basis that it is implementation specific.

Commit to an implementation and then we can discuss pros and cons in more detail than “it wasn’t in the original”.

Until then, while the discussion is for some vague undefined “dual spec” the responses will be vague “no, it wasn’t in the original”.

1 Like

You’re just avoiding answering the question.

if you can’t answer it just say so, that’s fine but stop with the false platitudes and just give examples that support why you think those things.

  1. How does dual spec change class viability in TBC? I don’t think it would and I’ve already explained why with exact examples.

  2. what the meta is - what is the meta? Do you even know what meta means? Most Effective Tactics Available. I don’t even know what you’re trying to say or what your point is even bringing in the “meta” like that means something.

  3. Gold sink removal - already addressed this, are you functionally illiterate? with all the dailies about to drop how can you even think 50g for a respec cost is a gold sink in any meaningful way. You don’t know what a gold sink is clearly.

Answer the question, why will the changes be bad? explain yourself don’t just spew word pollution actually explain your reasoning or just admit you can’t and it’s 100% entirely based on feelings; most likely feelings you got watching some 3rd rate streamer that isn’t even playing WoW anymore.

1 Like

The arguments about meta are to show that gameplay is potentially impacted. It’s a counter to the position that all forms of dual spec are purely qol and cosmetic and have no gameplay impacts.

It is self evident that talents impact game play (they’re not just cosmetic).

It is therefore your responsibility in advocating the change to argue that being able to toggle between talent configurations won’t impact of gameplay, because it’s seems pretty clear that it will. Yours is the counter intuitive position so that’s the position that needs to be defended.

2 Likes

You’re losing track of yourself.

Answer the question, give specifics. I’ve given specifics.

Yes. Talents impact gameplay. Can you please tell me how this is related to the current discussion on dual spec and how dual spec will specifically impact it?

The problem is that I’ve fulfilled my responsibility and now I’m asking you to fulfill yours. I’ve given very specific and tangible examples to every single point i’ve made. You have not done the same.

I’ve defended my point, you haven’t done the same. Do it.

I’m genuinely curious to see you make an actual argument. I’m begging you to do it. Please counter my points. I would love to engage someone who counters my actual points with points of their owns not just had waving drivel.

You: Gameplay will be impacted
me: How?
you: i don’t have to explain to you you have to explain your position to me
Me: explains my position, now you explain yours
You: it’s self evident, talents impact gameplay, dual spec will impact gameplay
me: okay how? (knowing where this is going next)
you: implementation matters

amirite?

you’ve got yourself stuck in a loop.

My point is that I don’t think you have adequately defended the need for dual spec to address tank and healer shortages.
A less impactful change can have similar impacts. I.e reduced respec costs.

The fact that you want me to present a proven situation where dual spec will cause harm is not a question I need to answer. It is intrinsically more risky than the change I proposing, therefore unecessary.

Having said that, I have provided some examples where gameplay be impacted.

WotLK implementation. Stop getting side tracked. Stay on topic, stop repeating yourself and answer directly when asked direct questions. Be an adult, have an adult discussion.

It doesn’t matter what you think, prove it.

the only thing that truly stopped this game from being wow was the pruning they did in wod, whoever changed all of the graphics, and abilities in wod, is what ruined wow forever

No, you can give hypothetical situations that exist within the framework we’re discussion. the WotLK implementation of dual spec.

This is not confusing, i’ve been very direct with you.

No you. You don’t seem to understand how burden of proof works.

1 Like

Like look I’ll make an argument for you just to get yo

You don’t, because I’ve given my proof now you can either disprove it or accept it but you can’t ignore it which is what you’re trying to do.

1 Like

I’ve been straight with you. I’ve already claimed that the specific implementation you mentioned is fairly benign but unecessary. I took great pains to demonstrate that same lockout spec switching has greater implications than not same.lockout spec switching.

Others promoted the Cata model which is not benign. I’m arguing with a whole bunch of different models each of you has in your head as “best”.

This is why the least change required to address the problem is my preferred approach. Otherwise we get bogged down in a necessary discussion about implementation.

Just reduce respec costs, problem solved.

You’re shifting the focus to avoid answering the question again.

Give a specific example of how the WotLK implementation would impact TBC negatively.

I’ll make an argument for you, it’s not hard but at this point i don’t think you’re actually capable of coming up with one:

A lot of raid leaders would expect players to have dual spec making not optional and putting an additional burden on newer raiders

See. that’s an argument.

This isn’t an argument. It’s barely a sentence.

I assure you it is a sentence.

And no, it isn’t an argument - you’re presenting the argument. I’m countering. That’s the whole burden of proof thing you’re missing.

My main objection to the Wrath Dual spec (specifically) is that it’s overkill. You can solve the problem with a lesser change - so why don’t we?

Again, your preferred implementation is not everyone’s - in proposing a fundamental change the discussion of implementation limits becomes important.

Just on a pure flavour basis - if we keep implementing features that exist in later wow versions into TBC now we have less to look forward to later. By the time we get to WoTLK classic we’ll have pretty much all the core changes already and be simply adding new content patches. This to me disrupts the whole cycle and breaks the “classic” emersion. TBC just becomes a fairly unnecessary stepping stone to Wrath. Why not wait for Wrath before implementing Wrath features while addressing issues in the TBC game with simpler less impactful fixes? That’s my preference - make smaller changes and don’t simply fast track features from later patches.

BTW I’m not evading or shifting goalposts or whatever - I’m not making a proposition, I’m countering your proposition. The goal posts are yours to set not mine. Consider also that you’re not the only one asking for this and that you don’t all necessarily agree on where the goal posts are or what the limits should be. I find myself having to cover off all of your (plural - various people proposing dual spec) positions.

Oh, and how is presenting a subjective list of unsubstantiated benefits “proof” of anything? My claim is that you can achieve the same potential end result with less change, so the change you are suggesting is unecessary.

If i say “I think that sweater is blue”

The counter argument isn’t “I’m pretty sure it’s made of cotton”.

you’re just repeating the same things and you’re not even making any points just vague references.

Close. It’s more like this:

You: “this sweater is blue”
Me: “I don’t think it looks blue”
You: “Prove to me beyond any doubt that my sweater isn’t blue”
Me: “Short of using a wave length analyser all I can say is your sweater doesn’t look blue …”

It’s your claim, you prove it.

1 Like

Ya, you clearly aren’t playing with a full deck of cards and taken up enough of my energy. Good luck.