Out of his entire post, that was the best argument you had. Pretty much sums it up LOL
1 Like
They gave you exactly what they said they would give you. They gave you twisting exactly how it was in TBC.
If they gave it to you, why are you crying?
Paladins already got #somechanges. Just because you want more, doesn’t mean you should get them.
no, if you think they gave us what they said they are, your reading comprehension skills need to be polished.
yours as well
going to have to speak very slowly and be very elaborate going forward.
I think you don’t even know you’re own argument. Did they give it to you or not?
Please show me where blizzard specifically stated “we are going to implement twisting, only we are going to change it so you can use all seals for dual twisting”.
What they did say is “we are going to implement twisting because it was in TBC and was a quirk. Let us know how it feels.”
They did, on ptr and beta.
It was removed when they fixed another bug with seal of blood. It wasnt mentioned anywhere in the patch notes.
For all anyone knows, fixing one bug caused another and we should still have bi-directional twisting.
"Paladin seals will now persist on the Paladin for a very short time after they’re replaced by a different seal.
Developers’ notes: The concept of “seal twisting” was only possible due to spell batching. With a greatly reduced batch size, we’re adding a slight buffer when you swap seals to allow you to proc two in the same swing This was not an intended interaction in Original WoW, but it’s a fun quirk of WoW Classic gameplay, and we want to allow Paladins to retain the ability to do this. Please let us know how this compares on the PTR to how seal twisting currently works on live realms."
there.
3 Likes
So from waht I see, it was a bug in PTR and beta too. You just refuse to admit that. Also, beta/PTR is subject to changes, idk why you would assume because it was there once it would stay. Your argument holds no water.
Or, blizzard fixed it as intended and you just dislike it. LOL
2 Likes
that’s not what they said they’d give us, they said they’d give us a delay between all seals, for the hundredth time it’s their words not ours
1 Like
The best argument FOR is the blue post that said Paladin Seals should persist for a tiny window after switching Seals.
The best argument AGAINST is that’s not how it worked in TBC.
I think the argument against is stronger, BUT the only wrench in it is that there have already been several changes to things that make the game different than original TBC.
We’ve beaten this horse to death. Some clarification would be great. If none comes, assume the PTR to be the clarification. We don’t need this thread anymore.
3 Likes
If you take both sides, the real difference is that one side is fine with larger changes to how the class is designed and played, and views these changes as not a break from the spirit of TBCs design, and the other side does.
Saying that the changes you want aren’t something that should be done isn’t “shutting down” the conversation. It’s simply the other half of the discussion.
Leaving the thread an echo chamber of “yes, 2 way twisting please!” And ignoring all dissent because you disagree with the position isn’t a constructive discussion.
Fun is subjective, what you find fun, others may not. Every downside that one way twisting has 2 way twisting also has.
It’s a significant change to paladins, and if the buff is a large part of why it is wanted, there are better ways to buff the class without changing how they play.
It’s pretty hard to argue that making changes to the class rotation to better support a bug they decided to salvage from removing spell batching would fall under the “spirit of TBC” that the devs quote when making changes.
The devs did not intend for LW to be on 20 people, hence the change.
The devs did intend that armor and abilities that raise “attack power” raise ranged attack power unless it states “melee attack power.” Hence the change.
What the 2 way twisting crowd has failed to do is argue why this change falls under the spirit of TBC.
You are correct, no changes does not exist in tbc classic, but that doesn’t mean that ANY change is on the table.
There needs to be a fairly strong argument as to why it fits in with the developer vision for the paladin class at the time, and there are some roadblocks there.
Twisting in general is a batching bug, not an intended part of the class. Yes, blizzard intends to keep it around, but they haven’t signaled that they want it to be stronger.
Paladins are intended to be lower on the dps meters due to the hybrid tax, even with your “lol shamans” comment, that’s a barrier.
The change is an adjustment to the paladin rotation, and further emphasizes it away from the TBC intended rotation.
This isn’t a flat “no changes” issue, it’s an issue that none of it can be justified under the original intents of the TBC developers, which is the metric the current developers are using to determine which changes are ok, and which are not.
Just stating that “it doesn’t change things if paladins get this,” doesn’t provide evidence it is part of that “spirit of TBC”, it’s ignoring that as a change limiter.
Not all changes are on the table, but all could be if they can be contextualized under developer intent at the time.
I personally don’t think that the 2 way twisting arguments meet the threshold of being something the developers would have wanted for paladins back then, given that it was a bug, and the hybrid tax was still being enforced at the time. The official response on it from the time was that it was tolerated, rather than something the developers wanted happening.
It’s not my decision to make though.
2 Likes
I’m just sayin, ‘the spirit of tbc’ got hit by a mac-truck day 1. We’re talkin online stores, game time tokens, unilateral QOL.
2 Likes
You’re right. The only difference would be does two way twisting meet the intents of the developers now. Since we don’t have much to go off of other than the blue post and PTR, its tough to tell.
I would assume the devs intentions would be reflected on the PTR and that its possible there’s a miscommunication between the devs and a community manager. Just an assumption!
3 Likes
Oh, I fully agree that the paid features broke from it heavily.
The gameplay/mechanical ones have stuck to it fairly strictly so far.
My views on changes tends to align more with that nebulous “spirit” of TBC.
Of course, everyone has different places where that line in the sand is drawn.
Agree. I think the two major camps on this issue break down as such: half of us are reading the words that blizz spoke with their mouths, and the other half want to put words in their mouth. That’s all I’m seein
3 Likes
You literally spend 70% of your post saying #nochanges then ended it with
#nochanges doesn’t exist, and the literal post from yesterday stating that there would be further changes is evidence that hey, there will be more changes!
You suggesting that the twisting change is a full on change to the CLASS is incorrect, it’s a change to the ROLE. That is, unless you think prot and holy paladins are going to start twisting too. While I don’t think it was your intention, language is very important in arguments.
The hybrid tax comment is entirely destroyed by shamans (also maybe priests), I’m not sure how you keep forgetting that or why you’d want to repeatedly put your mistaken logic on display.
The original intent of developers was no tinnitus. The original intent of the developers was no twisting. The original intent of the developers was no ranged AP on Dragonslayer or DM buffs. The original intent argument is clearly not holding water, so why do you keep making it?
#nochangesunlessblizzardmadeachangethenIwasokwithitallalongbutanymorechangesIdisagreewithuntilblizzardmakesthemthenIwillhavebeenokwiththemallalongtoo
2 Likes
As much as I’d like dual twist to be in the game I think this is a lost cause, Blizzard won’t buff paladin just because “we want it”, there has to be a good reason for this change.
1 Like
I don’t care about the ‘buff’ part personally, if they could find a way to keep our DPS the same as 1-way while giving us two-way I would be happy, it’s just a massive QOL thing.
2 Likes
This is what I’ve been saying. “We like it” Wasn’t an excuse for anything else that was admissable, why is it here?
1 Like