Absolutely. The changes that have been made so far weren’t necessary. They were added to make the game more fun for most people, quite successfully. Dual spec is also a change that would make the game more fun for most people.
1 Like
FTFY
It’ll be in Wrath Classic. See you there! 
1 Like
Even in wrath, when it happened, it was expected that I had a resto set as an ele shaman main. It wasn’t just a guild thing, it was a raid pug thing.
A player who can bring both sets to the table, fully geared and prepped, is worth more than the one who brings only a single set (for hybrids anyway). I don’t see how anyone can possibly deny that this happened.
For example. Most guilds I have been seeing who are recruiting tanks, are looking for flex tanks in current BC classic. If dual spec were a thing, then prot warrior would be a flex tank, but it would now be a hard requirement to even get into a guild or a raid pug.
It changes the social dynamic of group building and how everyone perceives the value of one another. This is absolutely something game developers are aware of, and they have the control over stuff like that. When wrath came out, and every new piece of gear of a higher item level was absolutely better than the previous, then gear score started being used (the add on) to gauge the effectiveness of players before they joined groups.
So while dual spec isn’t a huge offender compared to many other systems/mechanics that came out, I would argue it still had a massive impact on the game.
2 Likes
Maybe before if we’re lucky.
never gonna happen.
of course it did. to say anything else would be pure lunacy.
1 Like
I’d prefer to see the OG lfg that was accessible in TBC. How about asking for something that’s actually missing.
1 Like
Every change to the game discussed on this forum had someone against it saying it was never going to happen. All the multiboxers here said over and over again that blizzard was never going to ban input broadcasting software and hardware. No one knows the future but you can keep thinking you do. I’m sure you can find a good astrology site to help you or you can read Nostradamus.
No, it’s not. From Nethaera in 2006, in the lead-up to original TBC on whether re-speccing should be made more accessible:
We would like to continue to support the idea that respecs should be very carefully thought out strategic decisions.
How in any way does dual spec align with this statement?
2 Likes
So Kevin Jordan has stated that there were two really big arguments around WoW’s creation with the dev team where had had to pull seniority and just tell them it was going to be a thing.
One was having two factions.
The other was the day/night cycle in the game.
I do not think the original developers realized what the community would do to their builds in terms of min/maxxing and how vastly different PvP specs would be from PvE specs - considering the majority seemed to have not wanted PvP to be such a mainstay of the game in the first place with opposing factions.
And yet about a year later they began to work on adding it. Experience changes people’s minds. Not yours of course nothing ever changes your mind but most people learn and change over the years.
Truly. They really learned and became wise. This wisdom has led us to the masterpiece that is retail wow. If only people would see the light, and embrace change.
1 Like
I would 100% believe and agree with that. However, I don’t believe that is justification to retcon those decisions. There are very few instances where an artist’s attempt to “rectify” the errors of their past decision making resulted in an improved product.
Again, I could say the same thing about Death Knights. Can you tell me why Dual Spec should be in TBC but not Death Knights?
Moreover, I don’t know why you keep attacking me personally. All I am saying is that your opinion on what would make the game “better” is intrinsically incompatible with the design of the game and therefore cannot be objective. Again, maybe I think Death Knights would make TBC “better”. That doesn’t mean I’m right.
1 Like
You mean the way people embraced the pally seal change and the drum change? I totally agree that dual spec should be embraced the same way.
I agree that my opinions are not objective. What you have trouble understanding is your opinions are not objective either. You can claim dual spec is incompatible with the game design but it’s just your opinion. Most children learn the definition of opinion in elementary school but perhaps you were out sick that day. Maybe this will help:
o•pin•ion
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof:Did you not read the quote I posted from Blizzard in 2006 which supports my statement? That means it’s not opinion, it’s a fact that Blizzard wanted respeccing to be inconvenient.
The only real reason i want it is because i hate changing all my keybinds and spells around.
I put things in a completely different spot if in ret, prot, or holy.
It makes it so i never want to swap. I couldn’t care less about the gold.
did you not read my reply that about a year later the blizzard devs began to work on adding dual spec so something must have changed their minds? Repeating your opinion over and over again doesn’t change it into a fact. That’s another thing children learn in elementary school. Were you out sick often from school that you missed all this basic education?
1 Like
I did, then I asked you
Or we want what existed in the original version to exist in the re-release?
Dual spec wasn’t in TBC and it should be not be in TBC classic.
Dual spec was in Wrath so it should be in Wrath classic.
This should be fairly obvious….
1 Like
I could give you my opinion but that’s not what this discussion is about. I could give you my opinion why the pally seal change was a good change or why the drum change was good or why I like the boost or why I don’t care about the store bought mount or why I think banning input broadcasting software and hardware was good etc. I could write a 100 paragraph essay on these topics. But no one would read it and it would be off topic on this thread.