I don’t see anyway that BC discouraged pugs. The looking for a group channel was always for pugs, until it turned into the selling a boost channel in Classic.
The tool was specifically limited to server only - the intent being that it would encourage longer term player bonds and objectives. I can’t find the old posts on it but the dev team were quite hesitant about releasing a group finder because of perceived impacts on creating a bond between players and server communities. This doesn’t mean they didn’t want pick up groups but rather they wanted that to evolve into more bonded groupings such as guilds.
They wanted the hard stuff to require more committed groups. That of course changed in WoTLK with the new dev team.
Edit: This is all historically speaking. Blizard don’t have to commit to the same objectives as the original dev team did. But to keep in the spirit of the original game they should be cautious about how and why they break with it.
Again, Blizzard stated in 2006 that they wanted respecs to be significant and meaningful as they carried into TBC. Can you reconcile those two points?
1 Like
I am not wrong. The number went up initially, but basically flatlined around 12.5 million until the content drought (one of the worst in the game’s history) happened, then it went down to around 12 million.
Not a substantial loss, but the first time it not only didn’t grow substantially, but lost players.
I’ve checked and not a single site agrees with you. While the increase slowed drastically and there were flat lines there was no loss until cata was released. Can’t link here but you can reassemble this or search for yourself.
powerwordgold.blogspot. com /2013/07/world-of-warcraft-subscribers-2005-2013
Ahem… choice does matter, and the 50 gold respect is designed where not everybody is going to be able to or want to spend that. Obviously, since 50 gold is no big deal to you, you don’t see a difference. So #nochanges, and pay your 50 gold because it’s no big deal to you, ya?
Since gold is so easy to make in Tbc, dual spec is obviously not needed. Right?
1 Like
I’m not even sure I get this line of argument … are you arguing that WoTLK was the most popular period and therefore we should skip the TBC experience and implement WoTLK features to TBC classic?
I’m simply correcting an error. According to every site I’ve looked, and I’ve looked at several, Wrath did not lose subs.
Consdering the vitriol the Alliance has been throwing at Horde over the other absolute need for Merc Mode i suggest you tell your own side to check their privilege first.
Is this what thy are claiming now?
Talk about fake news.
TBC was and is not unplayable without it. All content was cleared, and all content will be cleared without it.
Enjoy it when you get WotLKC!
Horde player telling alliance to check their privilege.
TOP KEK
Okay … but why is it relevant whether WoTLK or TBC were the games peak growth era? Or whether Wrath lost subs?
This goes as much for the other person you’re responding to on this too.
But, that’s quite some time ago and I don’t see why it should have any bearing at all on the feasibility of adding dual specialisation into TBC classic - unless I’m missing something?
1 Like
Not trying to be troublesome with this. It just seems that comparing Wrath popularity with TBC is a bit of a herring and not particularly relevant to the core issue.
The way I see it the following points form the crux of discussion around adding dual spec to TBC:
-
Blizzard are open to making changes to the TBC classic game IFF they are within the “spirit of the original game”.
-
People hypothesise that Tank and Healer shortages in pugs are driven by low raw numbers of people speccing into those roles and that having a dual spec will alleviate that.
-
People proposing inclusion of Dual speccing believe it is a small QoL change with negligible gameplay impacts.
I accept point 1 and not point 2 or 3.
I am not convinced Tank and healer shortages in pugs are driven by a general shortage of people speccing into those roles and thus question whether adding dual specialisation will do anything significant to alleviate that issue.
I personally hold the view that there is no such shortage in guilds and that there is simply a reluctance of people fulfilling those roles in pugs. I would conjecture that this is due to the mechanics - in TBC specifically early on Tanking and healing effectively take a bit more work. You need to use CC and threat matters. Much harder to manage with a group of strangers than with a guild group. The effect of adding dual spec will at best do little to change that and at worst cause an influx of unskilled Tanks and healers into content that actually requires a bit of class, role, and content knowledge.
Point 3 I don’t fully accept either. I think there are potential implications of dual spec to class balance and raid composition depending on how it is implemented. Game breaking? Probably not, but unnecessary in my view. I think it is a non trivial departure from the original games design goals so as to be “not in the spirit of the original game”.
Convincing me that point 2 is in fact true will go a long way toward me feeling that it’s worth risking point 3 in order to rectify it. As it stands I’m not convinced by point 2 and so I feel that point 3 is an unnecessary risk.
1 Like
Obviously nobody can say for certain, but I’m pretty sure that the devs of BC are the same ones that added dual spec in Wrath, because they wanted to encourage people to take part in more aspects of the game than just one, such as both raiding and arenas. So even the devs as early as at least Wrath thought it was a good idea to implement dual spec for those reasons, which are reasons that have been around since before Wrath.
Also, #nochanges is no longer the development philosophy for classic going from BC and onward. They stuck to it for vanilla, but everything afterwards is officially #somechanges. Which is good; if they stuck to nochanges for every single classic expansion eventually it would simply catch up to the retail that everyone loves to hate so much. If you hate retail so much, you technically shouldn’t be so adamant about #nochanges so stubbornly.
1 Like
Subjective, again.
Yes, because all Alliance players are part of the same tree house where we conspire ways to oppress the Horde.
Without condoning or condemning any toxic behaviour by other people, unfortunately the impetus is on you to nonetheless carry yourself with dignity if you are trying to change the status quo. Remember, you’re the one asking for a favour.
Good grief. People are allowed to have opinions. Just because you disagree doesn’t mean everybody else is wrong. Again, stop being so self-indulgent.
Doing Karazhan at the time of writing this. Was thinking about this while fighting Shade…
I tank normally. Shade doesn’t care about that. He shoots who he wants.
Given the nature of the Shade of Aran fight, I want to play as either Boomkin or Tree for it.
I don’t want to pay 100g to switch in an out this single encounter.
Simple as that.
Queue Seal of Blood/Martyr, Boosts, Store-boat mounts, etc. as reason for why #NoChanges arguments are null and void.
My vote for Dual-Spec is yes and I will support any motion towards that.
1 Like
How about you round them up.
1 Like
I have nightmares about the cows getting out.
/ranchlife
Ironically fights like Shade are probably the reason you, as a Druid, got a spot Tanking in the raid rather than a Pally …
Now if there were dual spec! Hmmm, Why take a Druid Tank for Kara? Being able to go kitty and do reasonable dps in your Tanking spec is like THE perk of bringing you along.