Refuting the common arguments against Dual Spec

[Novuss-kirtonos]

Not all of the time. We only did it on nightbane. We had a palidan that swapped from prot to healing. We did it everytime. Every week. Right up to the week we stopped. At that point it wasnt needed.

It doesnt change your the debate at all.

You continue to shine the light on the exact facts that i have been pointing out. You are a selfish person. You are only concerned with YOU. Out palidan switched to help our entire guild beat a boss. We were all happy and thankful he was willing to do it. If we had someone like your selfish asz in the raid we would have gkicked you on the spot.

Then you say you would have multiple guild members doing it. Again, showing that the majority want it. But everyone should be held back because YOU dont like it. Again. Door needs to open, you very very quickly going through it, followed by the foot of every member of your guild. Selfish ppl.

[Zipzo-atiesh]

@Fasc-atiesh

Illiteracy is a problem that can be solved.

So you can still be saved!

@Fasc-atiesh

Sure, but Blizzard may proceed anyway.

There are other external variables that potentially make dual spec less than a 50:50 scenario. Your repeated assertion of Blizzard’s “could” factor is a repeated denial of that reality.

@Fasc-atiesh

This is just you inserting your bias now, and without warrant.

Haha…your own bias is like the building block of your entire argument, dude.

@Fasc-atiesh

Hardly, since they also don’t mention HvH BGs, Feral changes, Tinnitus, etc. Had they never made another change since, you’d have a bit more ground to stand on, but they have, and so you don’t.

Each of this have specific problems they intended to solve, and were given gigantic blue posts on why they were deemed OK.

HvH - The horde queue times are absurd beyond comprehension. It’s their fault but, I mean, what can ya do. It is what it is.

Feral changes - an interview with the actual lead of that patch said it was a mistake, and emergent gameplay propositions that never existed in original TBC (regen buff spamming with trollbloods) were threatening to make Cat an unnecessarily toxic gameplay style. They had good reasoning here.

Tinnitus - Raiding was going to look very different if they left drums alone, and most would argue that again, due to emergent gameplay habits, had all sorts of effects that would not be desirable for a faithful TBC experience, such as making LW the big looming pressure for every single raider.

Dual spec has no such grounds to be considered. It helps people save gold. That’s it. Boo hoo.

@Fasc-atiesh

Sorry, but you really need to work on basic reading.

“I’m going to re-assert my interpretation of their words for the 1003rd time, again, stating it as fact! It will work this time!”

[Fasc-atiesh]

@Zipzo-atiesh

There are other external variables that potentially make dual spec less than a 50:50 scenario. Your repeated assertion of Blizzard’s “could” factor is a repeated denial of that reality.

You keep wanting to quibble about a ratio that doesn’t matter and doesn’t exist, stop injecting and arguing facts not in evidence.

@Zipzo-atiesh

Haha…your own bias is like the building block of your entire argument, dude.

“Nu uh!!”

Blizzard, the owners and creators of the game, have made no such distinction that you have made, which means your interpretation of Blizzard coupled with your personal insertion is flatly wrong. If I assume you mean “cat” every time you say “dog” I can “interpret” you very badly when you talk about common household pets. Just because you can interpret something very poorly doesn’t justify having such an asinine interpretation.

You look very silly trying to swap Blizzard’s meaning with your own.

@Zipzo-atiesh

Each of this have specific problems they intended to solve, and were given gigantic blue posts on why they were deemed OK.

Okay? So what’s stopping Blizzard from doing the same thing with Dual Spec?

@Zipzo-atiesh

Dual spec has no such grounds to be considered. It helps people save gold. That’s it. Boo hoo.

It doesn’t need those grounds. Prove it does.

PS - Your “but it ruins MY experience” is hardly relevant either:

Patrick Dawson: I’m sure there will be some people that are going to be less than thrilled about a boost. But if you take a step back and think about what makes a World of Warcraft fun and engaging, it is playing with your friends.

They note people dislike things, but they focus on whether it detracts or not from playing with your friends. Dual Spec certainly doesn’t hinder that… LOL

[Growl-incendius]

people are still whining about this? just quit the game if dual spec matters that much

[Zipzo-atiesh]

@Fasc-atiesh

You keep wanting to quibble about a ratio that doesn’t matter and doesn’t exist, stop injecting and arguing facts not in evidence.

Just because you ignore the evidence, or reality, because it doesn’t meet your standard, whatever that is, doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist.

@Fasc-atiesh

Blizzard, the owners and creators of the game, have made no such distinction that you have made, which means your interpretation of Blizzard coupled with your personal insertion is flatly wrong. If I assume you mean “cat” every time you say “dog” I can “interpret” you very badly when you talk about common household pets. Just because you can interpret something very poorly doesn’t justify having such an asinine interpretation.

You look very silly trying to swap Blizzard’s meaning with your own.

“I’m going to re-assert my interpretation of Blizzard’s words as fact for the 1004th time! It will definitely work this time!”

@Fasc-atiesh

Okay? So what’s stopping Blizzard from doing the same thing with Dual Spec?

@Fasc-atiesh

It doesn’t need those grounds. Prove it does.

PS - Your “but it ruins MY experience” is hardly relevant either:

I’m sorry but I’m not obligated to prove to you why dual spec has no bolstered inclination (on Blizzard’s end) to be added. I don’t need to prove a lack of any belief in the existence of a thing.

The burden of proof is on you to back up the claim that Blizzard probably wants to add it, or that it is a change they will add.

You’re citing the interview where they talk about changes, where they completely neglect to mention dual spec in even passing reference. That’s fine. It’s still just your interpretation though that those thoughts can extend to encompassing dual spec.

[Fasc-atiesh]

@Zipzo-atiesh

Just because you ignore the evidence, or reality, because it doesn’t meet your standard, whatever that is, doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist.

…what evidence? You keep insisting on some magic ratio that has no bearing on your insistence that changes must address a “need” so what are you talking about?

@Zipzo-atiesh

has no bolstered inclination

That’s not what I asked.

You really are illiterate.

@Zipzo-atiesh

You’re citing the interview where they talk about changes, where they completely neglect to mention dual spec in even passing reference. That’s fine. It’s still just your interpretation though that those thoughts can extend to encompassing dual spec.

They mentioned changes of any kind you silly silly child, including special rules servers that aren’t even commonly brought up.

@Zipzo-atiesh

I don’t need to prove a lack of any belief in the existence of a thing.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Lack of belief = disbelief

Disbelief is still a claim.

[Elisande-earthfury]

“Dual spec wasn’t in the game wait till wrath nerds!”

blizz adds H v H that wasn’t in the game will WoD

“daddy blizz so good thx we can play the game and have fun now”

[Zipzo-atiesh]

@Fasc-atiesh

…what evidence? You keep insisting on some magic ratio that has no bearing on your insistence that changes must address a “need” so what are you talking about?

I personally believe that the statements made on dual spec throughout history indicate a worsened chance, when coupled with what I believe is the design goal of TBCC (based on Blizzard’s stated goals).

It’s your prerogative to ignore those statements, but you can find no similar such strong statements made against the other changes they made, from a design standpoint, even in history, really.

FvF, feral energy, tinnitus, etc…Blizzard has never been so strongly against these types of changes in TBC as they were with dual spec, as we have no documentation of the former, and direct documentation of the latter.

@Fasc-atiesh

That’s not what I asked.

You don’t get to redirect the topic and then accuse me of redirecting the topic. You are the one having issues staying on course.

I’ve told you, countless times, nobody here cares about whether Blizz could or could not do anything. We’re discussing the value proposition of dual spec, exclusively. If you can’t figure out a way to do that without constantly changing the subject, that’s on you. Blizzard statements, unless directly addressing dual spec specifically, add nothing in that discussion.

If you choose to interpret that things they said in the interviews about #somechanges encompass dual spec, that’s your opinion. A nice interpretation that I disagree with.

@Fasc-atiesh

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Lack of belief = disbelief

Disbelief is still a claim.

Careful, your inner theist is showing.

Also, haha, can I just add how utterly absurd this quote is. It really shines a light on the type of person we’re dealing with here.

Do you believe in bigfoot?

[Fasc-atiesh]

@Zipzo-atiesh

I personally believe

Cool. When are you going to present evidence that matters?

@Zipzo-atiesh

You don’t get to redirect the topic and then accuse me of redirecting the topic. You are the one having issues staying on course.

You claimed that for Blizzard to implement change, that change must be needed. Prove that statement. It isn’t a redirect, it is the entire crux of the discussion.

@Zipzo-atiesh

I’ve told you, countless times, nobody here cares about whether Blizz could or could not do anything.

Then we can ignore you from now on since your “value judgments” are just aesthetic whims.

@Zipzo-atiesh

Blizzard statements, unless directly addressing dual spec specifically, add nothing in that discussion.

Bwahahahahahahaha

@Zipzo-atiesh

Careful, your inner theist is showing.

Who said anything about theism? Calling something a “lack of belief” is literally the same as “disbelief” which is just a negative claim. This is basic freshman logic.

What are you going on about?

[Zipzo-atiesh]

@Fasc-atiesh

Cool. When are you going to present evidence that matters?

It’s been presented. You missed it, or it doesn’t convince you. We move on with life.

@Fasc-atiesh

You claimed that for Blizzard to implement change, that change must be needed. Prove that statement. It isn’t a redirect, it is the entire crux of the discussion.

Evidence has been presented. You missed it, or it doesn’t convince you. We move on with life.

@Fasc-atiesh

Who said anything about theism? Calling something a “lack of belief” is literally the same as “disbelief” which is just a negative claim. This is basic freshman logic.

I did.

This entire quote is an actual affront to logic.

A argument that the “negative” burden of proof is on the person who lacks belief is completely untenable. It’s impossible to prove with 100% certainty that something doesn’t exist, and you can simply argue for the existence of any number of things outside of rationality or consciousness or time & space.

If the burden of proof is on me to prove something doesn’t exist, then I also need you to prove the non-existence of literally every single imagined concept. You’re making your argument un-falsifiable, and that’s poor argumentation (basic, I might add).

[Kumasama-westfall]

@Zipzo-atiesh

Let’s see some logs for proof.

Already looked at your own logs. You have a Warrior who raids with you who did a respec between Arms and Fury. Not sure when this was done, but his logs reflect this.

You throwing your own guild under the bus to prove yourself correct?

@Zipzo-atiesh

Blizzard has never been so strongly against these types of changes in TBC as they were with dual spec, as we have no documentation of the former, and direct documentation of the latter.

This is a lie. You are a liar.

@Zipzo-atiesh

Evidence has been presented.

Your “evidence” is 15 years old and presents a mindset that has no relevance for a game made in 2021 that promises #SomeChanges. This has been stated repeatedly and yet you still post this as “evidence.”

You are a liar.

[Fasc-atiesh]

@Zipzo-atiesh

It’s been presented.

Oh you think your BELIEFS are evidence? HAHAHAHA

@Zipzo-atiesh

Evidence has been presented.

So I am to take on faith then eh? Neeeeat.

@Zipzo-atiesh

This entire quote is an actual affront to logic.

Oh this should be good

@Zipzo-atiesh

A argument that the “negative” burden of proof is on the person who lacks belief is completely untenable.

Well yeah… because burden of proof is a social convention, not a rule of logic. Derrrp.

@Zipzo-atiesh

It’s impossible to prove with 100% certainty that something doesn’t exist

You can prove negatives. I can prove you aren’t sitting in my chair. Proving negatives can often be very difficult, but they aren’t impossible or illogical.

@Zipzo-atiesh

you can simply argue for the existence of any number of things outside of rationality or consciousness or time & space.

Which is why you rely upon the known absolutes and restrictions and rule sets to prove negatives, like above.

@Zipzo-atiesh

If the burden of proof

Burden of proof isn’t a rule of logic, so if you want me to be convinced of your position, the only person that can do that is you, otherwise I’ll have no rational choice but to treat your assertions as unwarranted (thereby irrational) beliefs or mere aesthetic preferences, which really is a distinction without difference.

@Zipzo-atiesh

You’re making your argument un-falsifiable, and that’s poor argumentation (basic, I might add).

Popper has nothing to do with logic. You’re confusing the need to test and filter scientific theories, which is itself limited to science and is itself not a scientific theory, with actual logic rules, which are metaphysical.

I know basic logic covers Hume and his ultimate contradiction quite well, so I’m not sure why you’d bring up an example that shows you learned nothing at all.

[Zipzo-atiesh]

@Fasc-atiesh

You can prove negatives. I can prove you aren’t sitting in my chair. Proving negatives can often be very difficult, but they aren’t impossible or illogical.

I could be sitting in your chair. In an alternate reality I could have broken in to your home (or wherever you are) and punched you out and currently be sitting a-top your chair in victory. Right now.

Prove me wrong.

@Fasc-atiesh

Burden of proof isn’t a rule of logic

@Fasc-atiesh

because burden of proof is a social convention, not a rule of logic.

So you don’t believe in the burden of proof?

[Kumasama-westfall]

@Fasc-atiesh

So I am to take on faith then eh?

He means that 15-year-old quote is some kind of "evidence.

@Zipzo-atiesh

In an alternate reality

[Kerg-bloodsail-buccaneers]

@Fasc-atiesh

This is an ought. You believe the best way forward for Blizzard’s own interests is to maintain an authenticity that you feel is best for the game. That’s great.

That’s not a restriction on Blizzard.
That’s not even the same ought that Blizzard feels it has.

The interview makes clear that rigid adherence to #nochanges is flatly unworkable. The interview also makes it clear that they’re going to be recreating TBCC for a modern era of modern players and modern communities. You’re going to keep a lot of the TBC stuff, but you’re going to lose things that Blizzard says is going to go, and they’ve already done that a lot.

What you want != what Blizzard can or will do.

I think it is a restriction on Blizzard, for the monetary reasons I stated.

Let’s say you have 2 million players subbed to WoW overall, and there are 3 categories…

1. 1.0M play only retail
2. 0.5M play both retail and Classic
3. 0.5M play only Classic

If you change Classic to cater to group #2, you will piss people off in group #3 and lose them… let’s say it goes to this…

1. 0.8M play only retail… (200K start playing Classic as well, and move to group 2)
2. 0.7M play both retail and Classic
3. 0.3M play only Classic (200K get pissed about the changes and unsub)

Now you only have 1.8M subs instead of 2.0M, which is going to hurt Blizzard’s bottom line.

Now let’s say that instead, Blizzard tells the retail whiners no and refuses to change Classic to cater to group #2, and many of those players quit playing Classic and go back to only playing retail. Blizzard hasn’t lost anything as far as revenue and subs go, because the retail players will stay subbed for retail…

1. 1.2M play only retail (200K quit playing Classic because of lack of QoL features)
2. 0.3M play both retail and Classic
3. 0.5M play only Classic

Still 2.0M overall subs.

Now I know that’s an oversimplification, but I guarantee you it’s something that Blizzard factors in when it comes to deciding whether to add a modern feature that modern gamers want, knowing that it will likely piss off the Classic enthusiasts like me who are only subbed because of Classic.

[Zipzo-atiesh]

Well they like to claim that there’s a 4th category, tbf:

4. People who only play classic and will quit if they don’t add dual spec.

[Fasc-atiesh]

@Zipzo-atiesh

I could be sitting in your chair.

You aren’t.

@Zipzo-atiesh

In an alternate reality

Did you think this was a clever response? You sure you’re not out of high school? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

@Zipzo-atiesh

Prove me wrong.

You aren’t in an alternate reality, easy.

@Zipzo-atiesh

So you don’t believe in the burden of proof?

It isn’t something you “believe” in… what even is this?

@Kerg-bloodsail-buccaneers

I think it is a restriction on Blizzard, for the monetary reasons I stated.

You filled this with hypothetical numbers after Blizzard notes in that interview that people will be pissed off by the boost, but they largely don’t care when the reason people play is to play with friends. They also note in that same interview that there are just two communities: Classic and Shadowlands, and there is no real split. They also note that they are catering to the Classic community which includes lots of new and returning people, as well as tourists on their Retail accounts. They also note that the Classic community is different and modern and requires new things and wants different things that they’d be sensitive to.

This all means that while there could be some loss, they may make the change anyway, even in direct annoyance of old school returning players, because catering to the newer modern audience may yield better overall returns.

@Kerg-bloodsail-buccaneers

Now I know that’s an oversimplification, but I guarantee you it’s something that Blizzard factors in when it comes to deciding whether to add a modern feature that modern gamers want, knowing that it will likely piss off the Classic enthusiasts like me who are only subbed because of Classic.

I get they make number checks, but part of the number checks can be: “We know this will piss some players off, but it will be in the best interest of the community as it currently stands, so we’ll do it anyway.”

See: their comments on Boosts.

@Zipzo-atiesh

Well they like to claim that there’s a 4th category, tbf:

4. People who only play classic and will quit if they don’t add dual spec.

No one makes this claim.

[Zipzo-atiesh]

@Fasc-atiesh

You aren’t.

I could be, in another reality. You have no proof.

@Fasc-atiesh

You aren’t in an alternate reality, easy.

You have no proof.

@Fasc-atiesh

Did you think this was a clever response? You sure you’re not out of high school? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The whole point is to show how you can literally make any claim, in the entire universe and ask someone to prove it wrong.

That’s why it’s considered a dumb argument to say that a lack of belief is a claim. You made a dumb argument. The dumb one here is you.

@Fasc-atiesh

No one makes this claim.

Hahahahahaha, OK.

[Kerg-bloodsail-buccaneers]

@Fasc-atiesh

Blizzard notes in that interview that people will be pissed off by the boost, but they largely don’t care when the reason people play is to play with friends.

Blizzard ran the numbers on boosts, and decided that the new revenue it would generate was more than the revenue it would lose by pissing people off who hate boosts. So they did it anyway. Plain and simple. The reality is that though a ton of people complained about the boost, I don’t think many people unsubbed because of it.

And maybe that would also the case with dual spec, I don’t know. But dual spec doesn’t generate tons of cash shop revenue, while the boost did. So Blizzard is probably much less likely to do it because the monetary incentive is not there.

[Fasc-atiesh]

@Zipzo-atiesh

I could be, in another reality. You have no proof.

Then you’d be in another reality’s chair, not my chair. You were really enamored with the Matrix weren’t you?

@Zipzo-atiesh

You have no proof.

Sure I do, you’re communicating to me in this reality.

@Zipzo-atiesh

The whole point is to show how you can literally make any claim, in the entire universe and ask someone to prove it wrong.

You can make literally any claim, and you can ask someone to disprove it, but people can just tell you to kick rocks.

But I didn’t make a claim and ask you to prove it, you made a claim and I asked you to prove your own claim.

@Zipzo-atiesh

Hahahahahaha, OK.

Who is quitting if we don’t get dual spec?