You’re just lying. All the time. You can’t keep a single thing you say straight at all.
Sorry, don’t recall Holly Longdale ever saying that. However, I do recall her saying #SomeChanges. 
So, #SomeChanges
I’m playing the game I said that I wanted Blizzard to make. If that’s cherry-picking, then please feed me more cherries! 
You mean Blizzard? As in the people who made World of Warcraft?!
So the first priority for the people making the game is themselves? Umm…huh-doy!!
Not at all, but I’m not sure you have a solid grasp of objective vs subjective so I’m not too bothered by your confusion.
/thread
Why would there be? Infinity isn’t scientific, but infinity exists. If you’re going to argue that we have to have scientific evidence for something to exist, you have a LOT to answer for given everything you’ve said in this thread.
Materialists are very silly people. Don’t be a materialist.
This doesn’t follow because the premise is unsound. Disregarded.
Clearly incorrect when the premise is unsound. Disregarded.
There is no “it” to disregard without you establishing what “it” is, let alone that “it” exists. Then again, you asserted infinity doesn’t exist because it isn’t scientific so I think you’re entirely unequipped to handle this discussion at all.
Nope!
Incorrect, not every gain has an equal and opposite loss. What is gained by adding something such as Dual Spec may be greater than, equal to, or less than what is lost by adding something such as Dual Spec. Some changes can be merely net positives, or actually pure positives (or the opposites as well, or no change at all).
It doesn’t need to pave the way and it doesn’t even need to flow from WotLK. The Devs made a pointed set of remarks during interviews when TBCC was first coming around which include a marked departure from authenticity for authenticity’s sake. This is why they already had then decided to do things like give both Faction Seals from WotLK and add Boosts from a much later expansion (MoP? I actually don’t remember). This is also why they said they’d be open to even more changes as the community wanted/needed, provided it was in the best interest of said community.
Most importantly: Blizzard noted that the community of Classic players consisted of returning veterans and new players in large numbers, and that the overall Classic community is significantly more modern and expecting modern adaptations and solutions.
It doesn’t need to flow from anywhere. Dual Spec is very popular and Blizzard has asked for our feedback, so we give it. If Blizzard chooses to implement it, great! If not, also great, I’m still enjoying the game. I’d enjoy it more with Dual Spec added, but it isn’t a deal breaker. That’s really all there is to it.
There is no limitation on Blizzard that they address a “need” to make a change, they said as much in their interviews regarding #somechanges.
To which his go to is, “I hope they don’t and it is very unlikely that they will for objective reasons that are only based on my opinion. Also stop wanting things I don’t want and asking Blizzard for them or I’m gonna get sooo mad and call you a racist or something!”
1 Like
There’s a helluva lot of angst over a popular request being requested regularly.
2 Likes
sToP rUiNiNg ThE gAmE iT’s StIlL pUrE aNd NoT lIkE rEtAil!
1 Like
Seems like circular logic to me. But either way, seems like it is a big deal for some, and an unnecessary gold sink IMO
Massive off topic point incoming:
Wow - have no idea how the discussion got to mathematics - difficult responding when only reading half your conversation - the person you’re quoting is blocked.
But I have to chime in here - people without a mathematics background often fall into the trap of thinking about “infinity” as a thing or a state. It’s not. There is not such thing as “infinity” in terms “this is as big as infinity”. There’s multiple cardinalities describing infinite (or without bound) series. Mathematically you could euphemistically say there are different sizes of infinity - but even there you’re not describing a state just that different unbound scopes have different cardinalities. There’s no “infinity point” in an infinite series and there probably is nothing that “reaches” infinity as that’s fairly mathematically absurd.
At any rate talking about infinite as an instance makes no sense at all - infinite describes a series without a finite limit that is all. Integers have a different cardinality than rational numbers etc … this describes their limits within topological space.
So, you can say a series is infinite - meaning it has no bound in a series within a given set of numbers. But it isn’t at infinity and there’s no infinity for it to get to. The series will always have an n+1. That’s all it means.
When determining limits you can determine a limit to a finite point and that then is it’s limit or a limit approaching infinity - infinity is not a thing in this case but rather denotes a series without a bounded limit, or rather unbound, that’s all.
So talking about an “instance of infinity” is nonsense.
TlDR version:
Not sure who is even digging into this rabbit hole without seeing the other half of the conversation - but yeah there’s no point pursuing this “instance of infinity” line of argument as it fundamentally misunderstands what “infinity” refers to. In a topic about game design decisions it’s an absurd conjecture that makes no sense. Can’t see the relevance of it.
1 Like
I would expect someone in favor of dual specs to say nothing less. As I said earlier, this is pointless because people dont share the same values. Opinions are equal though, no winners there. Some people are content if not prefer the game in its more “natural” state without conveniences like dual specs. Some would like them very much and work their agenda toward that end.
If we absolutely have to ask the question of who should get their way and answer it honestly (no bias) I think it would go something like this:
Dual specs weren’t a thing in TBC. Since there’s no legitimate supporting argument for dual specs actually being necessary and it lands squarely into convenience for convenience sake territory there’s little to no incentive to accommodate the entitlement.
Again, with the understanding that there was no holy writ that commanded it had to be exactly a certain way the general idea behind the Classic revival was to get away from conveniences like dual specs regardless of how many people ultimately desire them.
My advice would be to wait for WotLK.
That’s a fair point. Everyone who wants dual spec, cancel your sub and uninstall until it exists. That will make the game better. Mine is expiring soon and I will probably not resub until dual spec exists.
There is never, under any circumstance, to take im quitting until i get my way threats seriously. Grow up.
This just adds to the game isn’t enjoyable for me anymore so I just log on to tank raids 1 day a week for my guild. So until I have the option to do something else I will not pay to play the game. Not a threat just a solution to make us in the dual spec crowd not sit around and wish for something that will ruin the game to terribly for the people that do not want it. TBCC is so pure and not anything like retail and they wish to keep it that way. We will just have to wait until they add things like same faction battlegrounds, boosts, and store mounts to be able to get dual spec also. Until then we need to maintain the pure experience.
In a guild setting that would be referred to as “drama”. Good luck with that.
Raid logging is drama? Don’t do drugs please.
Here, I’ll show you a glimpse.
Surprised?
There is, whether you’d like there to be or not.
Weeeeeeee.
It’s not circular. The point is that its absence creates no issues, while it’s presence does.
Kind of like how the absence of a sickness in your body causes no problems, but it’s presence does.
The people who want dual spec simply don’t recognize the bigger picture, because they’re focused on curing their immediate personal problems which basically amount to sucking at the game, because it’s not even hard to make the gold to respec right now, and it will only get easier as the expansion ages and we get daily hubs and all that stuff.
Well, it’s too bad she didn’t utter a single word about dual spec.
Wonder if dual spec will make the cut 
Or anything for that matter
“you know 41 point talents are just better they should have given lvl 60s 10 more points and 41 pt trees.”
“Warriors without spell reflect are basically awful they should just give classic warriors spell reflect”
“pvp in classic is terrible just put arenas in classic vanilla why are we bg grinding for ranks”
But if a group of people say they have the flu, you are going to tell them they are liars?
Lol - he should stick to law then - science clearly is not a forte’.
All of that is obfuscation. Talking about limits and infinity and whatnot in this context is silly.
Generally the conversation is about an ought. Ought there be dual spec in TBC classic and what are the consequences of introducing it?
It’s asinine to make the claim that ActaBliz can do with the game whatever they like. Duh. But should they implement whatever you (not you specifically) like?
So, IMO the discussion then turns to the question - What changes fall into the scope of TBC classic? Again this is an “ought”. Blizzard will have a scope for this and we simply don’t know what it is. We can derive hints as to some of the scope they apply but short of being in their stand-ups we’ll never know fully what defines the heuristic they apply to what change requests are in and what change requests are out.
What we can do is offer our opinions as to what that scope should be.
To his credit Ziryus offered up his view on an appropriate scope which then led to some sensible discussion. I don’t agree on his scope but at least it gave us something to actually discuss.
Without committing to an idea of what type of changes should and should not be in the game we can’t really have sensible discussion about this particular change request. Otherwise it just becomes a red vs blue argument. For there to be sensible discussion people need to be able to articulate the conditions under which their argument fails.
My view on it has been clear from the start:
Blizzard should consider changes that improve the game in such a way that it conforms to and enhances the design intentions of the original where those intentions are known. This is my opinion. It maintains the integrity of the project.
I’m sure he has a rousing argument as to how you’re wrong about everything you’re about to say.
Yes, this is his entire MO. Clear to nearly everybody.
Well, to be fair, it went sort of like this:
Fasc: Blizzard can do anything.
Me: They won’t do everything.
Fasc: They can.
Me: Irrelevant. They won’t.
Fasc: They can.
Me: Everything has a limit. There is a finite amount of anything that can be done to TBCC, guided by whatever policy Blizzard has on what they want to change. There are things that they will not add/change.
Fasc: But they can.
Me: They cannot do infinite changes to TBCC, there is a limit or a cut-off.
Fasc: Who says? Infinity exists.
So I’d take some responsibility for the term being brought up, but it still serves to make the point that…Fasc can’t seem to wrap his head around the concept of finite resources or time/existence, in favor of just bashing his head on to the table while repeating nonsense.
3 Likes