He gave in to the temptation of convenience.
Convenience:
LFD (cross-realm)
Personal Loot
Individual raid locks
→ Together to things worse than GDKP > boosting with funneling, ike retail…
LFD
LFR
Cross-realm play
Faction transfer
Character re-customization
Guild transfer
Class Homogenization (bring the player, not the class)
Unlimited character boosts
These conveniences were added to appease the players.
People who want Dual Spec will continue asking things until they get a retail version of TBC.
They’re trolls.
1 Like
no seriously we don’t all want HvH in tbc
yet here we are . ADD DUAL SPEC
2 Likes
We didn’t want Horde vs Horde.
We needed it because the alliance wouldn’t queue.
Oh, but we don’t need dual spec.
What we need > what you want.
1 Like
Still, no real explanation as to why this is a legit problem we are supposed to have. Just a statement.
There are some good arguments I have read about why Dual Spec should exist.
Seems to me that Blizzard got around to solving the problem in Lich King and that it wasn’t intentional the fact it didn’t exist in TBC.
1 Like
I gave you literal Blizzard quotes, man.
You’re just like the others. We give you information. We oblige your desire to see “reasons”. We give it to you, and you wake up the next day like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.
I gave you a literal essay of my own thoughts with reasoning.
Stop saying nobody has shown you anything. They have. Don’t insult your own literacy.
2 Likes
Why doesn’t your reply have the reason?
1 Like
bluetracker.gg/wow/topic/us-en/98646792-we-need-free-respecs-or-spec-swapping/
This has been linked to you no less than 3 times of course, so I’m not expecting this to be any different but I’m just going to link you this entire post every time I see you ask, over and over again, for a reason because you supposedly hadn’t been presented with one yet.
The funny thing is Neth is giving the same tone and disposition that you actually deserve.
2 Likes
It is still funny how this is still just a statement. Still no real in depth reason as to why this is bad for the game. What does a “real investment” mean to the game? Why is it necessary? How is a dual spec that costs thousands of gold potentially not a “real investment”?
I have seen arguments on the other side about people who are incentivized to stay logged off until raid days are over where they can respec for PvP. This reason represents a gameplay issue where people are incentivized to stay logged off. A real reason, not a statement.
Tbh, I have no skin in the game, I am a mage which means talents represent no “real investment”. I do feel bad for classes where they do though.
1 Like
I think the issue is that they don’t value our reasons therefore they don’t credit or address them.
You can see this in the way some people talk about “RP” and “Flavour” and “choice” as though all these considerations aren’t genuine because they’re trivial or unimportant.
The thing is - just because it is unimportant or trivial to you (generally not you specifically) doesn’t mean it is unimportant or trivial to me.
Being able to conveniently switch roles and effectively change my character identity is immersion breaking to me. Some people simply don’t understand that. They can’t even conceive why that would be a genuine issue for someone.
It’s conceptually no different to replacing quest givers and quests with chat boxes outlining button press sequences to receive points. The fun, the value is in what we are imagining we are doing, not simply in the underlying mechanics.
This extends to whether it is optional or not. You can opt for RP behaviour - I can choose to be a hunter that is ethically opposed to using a gun and therefore only ever uses bows out of principle even when they’re not as strong and that is my choice. You could argue the same for not using dual spec. Except - this is not me customising the RP of the game to suit myself, the current respec system is designed to have a whole world - not just one player - conform to this RP or having some consequence for respecialising. I am arguing for it to remain just like this as it is - not for it to be changed to suit my RP preference - it already does to a degree.
Anyway - the contention that RP elements are not important and that only mechanically impactful considerations matter is spurious.
Firstly, many of us value the RP side of the game and immersion breaking features are a big issue to us even if you think they’re herrings or trivial.
Secondly, I think RP elements are more important to those who dismiss them than they realise - there are so many things that could be abstracted out of the game that would be utterly immersion breaking - take the “removal of the quest giver abstraction” mentioned above as an example. So much of the game is flavour - and we don’t even realise it or credit it with value. You could play the entire game from numbers on spreadsheets if you wanted - but that’s no fun.
So things like using resources (like gold) to pay for retraining and such have impacts on how the game feels - this is important.
1 Like
It was the literal reason they refused to add it in to the game during TBC. Spoken by a Blizzard employee.
It’s your choice how you wanna deal with that information, I’m not bothered, but stop repeating ad nauseam that nobody has provided you a reason just because you don’t like or agree with TBC-era Blizzard.
1 Like
Who cares?
1 Like
To me, a “faithful recreation” cares about why the thing it’s recreating was created the way it was.
It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s beholden to it in every way, but it’s still important.
1 Like
Ok, fair enough.
I am honestly curious, how are YOU negatively affected by the addition of dual spec.
It detracts from the quality of the product I feel was promised, I.E. a faithful recreation. It becomes less faithful by adding a feature/convenience that never actually existed in real TBC.
When I go back to play classic I don’t wan’t the hindsight/more modern conveniences they added later in expansions after TBC, that’s rather the whole point for me.
So whether or not dual spec is a “nice feature”, it still ruins the faithfulness of the product.
Me personally? It invalidates the unique aspect of a feral druid by making our ability to both main tank and do great DPS ubiquitous amongst all the tanks. It’s a form of homogeneity that should remain in expansions further down the line.
It makes TBC raids easier by allowing players to swap to a more specialized spec on a per boss basis (this boss is easier with x talents, this boss easier with y talents). Older raids are easy enough. I’d like the bosses to retain the semblance of challenge they have versus players that do not have the ability to “specialize” themselves to them and conform to the situation.
I don’t like easier games just for the sake of making them easier. Forking how respecs have always worked in vanilla/tbc in favor of dual spec is just making the game easier…for no reason other than to please people (and yes, having to grind gold counts as difficulty, obviously as you can see so many people struggle with it and that’s intentional).
There’s no opt-out either. If you add dual spec, everyone I play with will use it. There’s no “dual-spec-less TBC”-mode I can switch on. You’re basically forcing me in to “easier TBC” and that’s not a nice feeling.
Blizzard didn’t force anyone to play dual-spec-less TBCC. People came to TBCC knowing full well it’s not a thing, and now they’re demanding it get added.
1 Like
Fair enough.
To me this sound like more of an ideological argument rather than a practical one. You feel like it invalidates your unique aspect.
Does it actually? From a practical perspective of group invites, raid groups, pvp compositions. No.
But if it makes you feel that way, so that is still a valid argument.
Question to me, is that more important than losing Arena Participation because people don’t want to login/respec inbetween raid nights so there are less queues? To me not really.
Again, I can respec whenever I want. I can farm as much as I want. But I can’t make Arena Queues better when people aren’t playing because respect costs are incentivizing them to stay logged off.
No it doesn’t. If anything it adds more value to Druids considering you could go Feral and Balance and technically have a DPS spec that caters to casters or physical dps on top of being a tank.
1 Like
Sounds like a benefit to me.
1 Like
Sometimes I run with groups that are heavy with casters. If I’m a Feral Cat, I add nothing of value to them. However, if I could make a trip to town real fast and respec to Boomking, then I’d be doing DPS and giving those casters an aura they’d love!
To my mind it comes down to defining what is within scope for changes.
Two arguments have been maintained by those for the change to respecialisation:
-
#nochanges has been superseded by #somechanges
-
all opposition is based on factors that are unimportant or of little consequence - to you.
You seem to be arguing the second point. I’ve outlined my view on that in my previous comment.
As for the first point, I think it is fundamentally logically flawed and here’s why:
Lengthy analysis of the logic of argument 1) incoming.
! == ‘not’. So, !flat means “not flat”.
=> == ‘implies’. So, “x => y” reads “x implies y”.
Lets begin:
let ‘nochanges’ be the set of all things that do not change the original state of TBC past and present to the original.
let ‘somechanges’ be the set of all changes to the original state of TBC that are acceptable to the dev team.
The 1) argument.
nochanges => !somechanges
therefore
!somechanges => nochanges
If Dual Spec is !nochanges,
then DS is in somechanges.
The problem with this argument is that it incorrectly assumes that an implication in one direction also implies the same in the opposite direction.
Let me illustrate why this is a problem by using the same argument to establish that the earth is flat.
Lets begin:
flat => !perfect_sphere
therefore
!perfect_sphere => flat
The world is not a perfect shphere,
therefore the world is flat.
This logic is unsound. An implication in one direction doesn’t necessarily imply the same implication in the opposite direction.
In order to argue that DS is in #somechanges you can’t rely on the implication that it is not in #nochanges. You need to establish what defines what is in #somechanges - define its scope, and then determine that DS fits within that scope.
1 Like