Hear yee hear yee, asking for a reduction in the cost of respecs within the current system would make more sense
I do believe that WC3 and SC both received a heavy amount of player input and thus rebalancing to make those games better. I wasn’t a WC3 player, but I do know that the Brood War expansion significantly altered the landscape of SC competitive play and some of those choices were done to specifically fill gaps or expand skill expression in ways both the Devs and Players saw should occur.
I’m not saying every whim should be listened to, but Devs aren’t perfect either and can miss quite a bit sticking to their own internal metrics.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of the Devs, I only question their goals and metrics. They want a game people will play, otherwise they’d not make a whole lot of money doing it.
I am completely against adding duel spec to TBC but I honestly never understood why a secondary spec is somehow sufficient. I mean the logic behind a secondary talent tree is the same for a third or a fourth or maybe even a 5th. Why not just get the retail version? This is where we’ll end up anyway. That way I can bg as pvp disc, do some 2s and 3s. Respec to pvp holy spec for 5s, then respec to pve holy for raiding. And maybe I want to try shadow spec.
See where this logic leads? Please let’s just stop asking for things that don’t need to be added to this game.
7 Likes
Yes, of course it is an informal fallacy. But the point is, many are rejecting dual specializations because they say that accepting it will lead to a chain of undesirable consequences that nobody likes. But if the justification for dual specifications doesn’t depend on previous changes but stands on its own merit, then positing the slippery slope is fallacious, because it lacks evidence. The fallacy is assuming bad consequences with lack of evidence. Accepting dual specs does not automatically lead to other undesirable changes. That is fallacious.
1 Like
That’s why I ended with this:
As it relates purely to players, they’ll find any reason to complain/demand anyway.
As it relates to Devs, which is the important question, Devs take notes from players but they don’t strictly follow them.
The most ironic thing is committing an ad hominem fallacy while arguing that the slippery slope isn’t fallacious.
The fact anyone still calls the slippery slope a fallacy is hilarious. It’s been proven over and over again…and even in this very thread.
5 Likes
Just to get everyone a bit back to earth…
Why do you want to change the classic game feel of TBC?
What is holding you back right now from going to your class trainer and respeccing?
Is it just because it is 50 gold each time? Well, that’s fairly easy to farm. And reducing the respec costs would be a far less intrusive change than adding dual spec.
Is it just because you don’t want to go to a large city? You’ll be there anyways eventually.
Why propose changes for something that has a huge potential for negative consequences on the integrity of the game while having little to no benefit compared to the current implementation?
There’s evidence that granting changes lead to further requests for changes. The evidence can be found all over these forums.
If the devs implement dual spec based on player feedback, there’d be cause to believe that requests do lead to changes. This may have already been the case with the pally seal and BG changes.
There’s no way to conclusively say, but I believe that it’s a reasonable inference that granting dual spec will increase the likelihood of more changes.
Stop yourself Fasc. I’m not talking about the legal definition of reasonable inference. I’m just talking about a plain old reasonable inference lol
5 Likes
I’m going to take the high road and say ur face is an ad hominem lol
j/k I love and respect you
2 Likes
Just because an argument is directed to the speaker’s beliefs, views, abilities, etc, it doesn’t make it a fallacy.
Ad hominem arguments are not only valid, but amazingly effective in a variety of contexts.
I wouldn’t have said anything had you not pointed it out, I’m kinda tired and busy today, but now I’m going to crack out some case law and you’re going to be SORRY…
PS - No way, too tired, love you.
2 Likes
Don’t you think that causal relationship is tenuous at best? A change was requested and granted → Other changes are requested → Other requests will be granted? If this causal relationship holds, why don’t we already have dual specs and every other feature that has been requested, given that some have been granted, like fvf bgs?
2 Likes
Lol, what?
The amount of delusion with that one…
Look I get it, you’re a classic andy and want an exact remake… never was going to happen. Plus, if we did have classic like it was… they wouldn’t have made it past vanilla classic…
Accepting dual specs does not automatically lead to other undesirable changes.
-
dual spec is an undesirable change
-
other undesirable changes have been used to try and justify dual spec
-
it is intentional design to be a deterrent in the game. i.e. at blizz headquarters probably went something like this:
“players shouldn’t be able to do everything, we should have some inelasticity in player strengths and weaknesses”
“you’re right, let’s add a large cost to being able to switch to dissuade the community from diluting the individualistic atmosphere of the world”
“but people may screw up their specs and want to try out multiple first, lets make it so it’s not as prohibitive but increases with each respec”
“sounds good, hopefully 15 years from now people will see something behind a gold barrier and interpret that as ‘the developers believe you shouldn’t be able to do everything without a significant tradeoff’”
“nah, no one would ever be that oblivious”
3 Likes
Look I get it, you’re a classic andy and want an exact remake…
correct
never was going to happen. Plus, if we did have classic like it was… they wouldn’t have made it past vanilla classic…
we did minus layers and flight path drop offs and it was the most successful mmo “release” in recent memory
3 Likes
If I were making an argument from authority, then I might agree that ad hominem argument might not be a non sequitur. Do you think that insulting a posters intelligence is a valid reason to reject an argument? If so, I think you are stupid.
Sure that’s fine. But without some of the changes… the game would have died out. TBC Classic wouldn’t have existed. You can’t ignore the majority of the player base to appease a small portion… you want everyone to get what they want… but you can’t sac it.
I remember that some of those changes that came with Cata and MoP actually caused a lot of players to quit the game…
Frankly, they were replaced with less, shall we say, engaged players who wanted instant gratification instead of a good story-line and having to work for improvement. These are the current retail players.
Basically, what Blizz started with Cata and continues to this day (including some of the abominations that were done to TBC classic already) is to water down the game to make it more appealing for a general audience while dissing and ignoring the audience that the game was originally (and I mean during the original release) targeted to.
This original audience, myself included, wants to relive the glory days of the WoW franchise, without the retail features that were put in to please a larger audience and shareholders.
Back then, developers didn’t care about shareholders, or if casual palyers played the game. Money was not the all important thing in the gaming industry as it seems to be today. The art of game development was fore-front and that is the way it should have stayed.
Requesting, as you are putting it, QoL changes is contrary to the wishes of the originally targeted audience of the game and therefore would destroy the soul and integrity of it.
1 Like
If someone lacks the requisite ability to do something, noting that lack of ability (whether insulting or otherwise) is entirely relevant.
Intelligence is not sacred, and Enigmuh wasn’t even being insulting. Rather he was commenting on the fact that understanding the difference between an actual fallacy and just naming informal fallacies is not a high level skill, so there is little excuse for people doing it incorrectly.
Put very bluntly: if you can’t make an argument or counterargument without relying upon name dropping fallacies, chances are very high you don’t fully grasp the discussion. If you find that insulting, that’s just too bad.
Cataclysm and Mists of Pandaria were exceedingly grindy affairs compared to their forebears, the raiding content was very difficult, and all the best toys, mounts, and rewards were behind prestige/elite type content. The only ding against either of these expansions story-wise were the endings, with Savior Thrall being obnoxious and Garrosh’s finale being a completely missed opportunity.
Comments like these make me wonder what you think you lost out on because there was nothing “instant” about most of the content in either.
4 Likes
Sure that’s fine. But without some of the changes… the game would have died out. TBC Classic wouldn’t have existed. You can’t ignore the majority of the player base to appease a small portion… you want everyone to get what they want… but you can’t sac it.
because the 3rd party classic community that’s more classic than classic wasn’t, and isn’t still, thriving lmfao
(this isnt an endorsement, dont ban me)