The idea is that people who want dual spec don’t understand that it’s bad for the game as a whole.
Think of it as something like the people who want to take horse dewormer to cure said flu. It’s really bad for you, but they want it anyways and think it will save/protect them…
Not really, some opinions are definitely worse than others. We can only really temper them against what Blizzard has said they will and won’t do, and we have preciously little on the “won’t do” side of the equation and a lot of range with the “will do” side. It is all potential though, so the winners (if you can call them that) are whatever ideas get implemented.
TBC itself has many conveniences for convenience’s sake, and as the current Devs said in their interviews, even things that players just really want like Race Change or special rules servers are not out of the question. It is a lot broader than people make it out to be.
Infinity, as Riger kindly pointed out, is a metaphysical idea, not subject to scientific theories. I’m sorry you’re a vapid materialist, but even Riger has you pegged.
Prove it.
Zipzo brought it up, not me.
Funny when you only pin part of the argument under a Popperian falsification idea but present a snippet out of that context. Liars gonna lie.
See here’s where you’re presenting the argument completely incorrectly.
I’ve never once said they will do EVERYTHING, only that they can do ANYTHING.
Liars gonna lie.
EDIT: And kudos for Riger actually pegging the “ought” argument almost word for word as I’ve stated it. More proof that if Riger says it, you’re fine with it, but if I say it, you just go apoplectic.
Yep haha, I think that was probably a wrong turn tbh.
I think the salient point is that there is no point discussing what Blizzard will do and why - we don’t know. But there is a point in discussing what we think they should do and why.
Unless we are willing to define our opinion on what types of changes should and should not be considered for inclusion we are just having a personal taste argument - red vs blue. Which is pretty pointless and definitely unresolvable.
Edit - to be clear that extends to what we think they should not do as well.
Ding ding ding!
Maybe I missed it, how does dual spec ruin the game?
Should we have dual spec if it makes the game worse without ruining it?
Retail has N-Spec, not only dual spec.
King of convenience.
You guys that want it so bad… should try it!
can’t speak for everyone but you’re right, they have added stuff like tinnitus, paladins seals being faction shared…alot of people never asked for those things nor wanted them. Yet via the whinging and b(*&hing of no lifers like yourself, they changed the game and made it less authentic.
Pretty much ALL of the major issues are player made as the same game didn’t have these problems to this degree. It’s 15+ years of prior knowledge being used to troll and ruin any real feel of the original game, world buff meta was not a thing like it was this time around, the fact that they had to add things to prevent it’s abuse is a shining example of playerbase not being able to help themselves. Honestly private servers have given better TBC experiences than this…including the community, albeit smaller.
Might argue ‘but it’s their bad game design’ or straight up put me down, but no, it worked originally, it only hasn’t now because players have flocked to streamers and sheeple into metas way too easily. Ruins gaming as a whole, not just wow.
Things you can blame blizzard for are decisions like…6000 player servers, for a world and game built on like 1200-2000 player servers, what could possibly go arong with balance when imbalances already existed in the small server sizes? Their inability to just stick to a basic release schedule from the original era just to appease a vocal minority with content they won’t remember in a year anyway.
Needs of the player base have not changed the way you reckon, the WANTS of the newer playerbase have, it all seems to boil down to WANTing instant gratification.
How does Dual Spec makes the game worse?
They’ve already said they aren’t going for authentic as a primary goal any longer.
https://screenrant.com/wow-burning-crusade-classic-holly-longdale-patrick-dawson/
Patrick Dawson: “No changes” being our guiding principle for WoW Classic made it very easy to make decisions on it. We just went to the reference client and went to that. But one thing we learned as we went through the release of the content in Classic is that [no changes] may not always be in the best interest of the players. Putting back in things like spell batching made the game feel a little less crisp. It was authentic, but it’s not what modern players want. The community today is so different from what the community was back in 2007 that it had us take a different philosophy with Burning Crusad e, where we actually started to allow ourselves to make some changes that were in the best interests of the players that will continue to develop alongside the community.
I don’t agree.
You can call it the wrong usage of the term, if you’d like, but the idea is to point out that Blizzard won’t do everything, because they literally can’t.
Where as Fasc’s entire argument depends on Blizzard being able to do any and everything at any point in time & space when they please.
They can’t.
Paired down to fit the topic: There are changes they won’t make. Dual spec may very well be one of them.
I mean yeah, I’ve been stating this over and over repeatedly. His response is always the same “My reasons are objective, yours are subjective”.
This is a literal impossibility for Fasc.
He thinks all of his reasons are objective, and everyone else’s reasons are “personal whims”.
Not sure what you’re so happy about? He outlined a task that has, so far, proven to be an impossible hurdle for you to overcome.
I’ve been saying over, and over, and over, that we need to discuss why Blizzard should add dual spec, and your response is always the same: “Your reasons are irrelevant because it’s personal whim!”.
Very clear. I should say.
Bwahahahahah no.
Riger accurately summarized the entire problem you keep ignoring or being ragey about.
As Riger pointed out, “should” is as much personal preference as “I like/hate Dual Spec” which makes the topic largely pointless when you keep demanding we not request it at all.
Fair enough. I’m only going on half a discussion. I’m not going to give myself the headache of reading the other half - I blocked that person with very good reason. I don’t trust what they have to say. At any rate I do side with your end of the spectrum on the discussion. Like you, it’s my view that Dual spec should not be included in the TBC game. Your position has been pretty consistent.
If it can be demonstrated that the change is within the scope I outlined then I’ll reassess that. Or if my scope can be shown to be unreasonable I’ll consider that too. But so far I’ve not found the arguments for Dual spec in TBCC convincing.
An irrelevant clarification…
They won’t be able to do any conceivable thing, only some things.
They can’t and won’t do everything.
Your entire argument hinges on the entire conceivable list of things they could possibly do being something they might do, and this is not the case.
There are things they probably won’t do.
The discussion starts here:
Why do you think they’re likely to add dual spec?
or
Why do you think they should add dual spec?
I think they probably won’t. I also think they probably shouldn’t.
You can’t immediately dismiss the discussion on the grounds that the reasoning is subjective, because we’ve already determined that the entire discussion is based on our subjective interpretation of the game’s needs and where Blizzard is at in the first place. There is no definitive outline as to how they feel about dual spec right now in TBCC.
That’s not my demand in the slightest. I’m making no demands, only giving my input.
You can cry for dual spec all you want, but don’t demand that I can’t come in here and tell you why it probably won’t happen.
Yeah, subject to the things they outlined in the interview which is:
These are specifics they lined up, so that means the sky is the limit, or more accurately, Blizzard is the limit. The TBC Authenticity blueprint is a secondary concern now.
Never said they would.
Nothing in the interview or the Dev’s other statements elsewhere foreclose any of this.
THEY SPECIFICALLY SHOWED INTEREST IN MAKING SPECIAL RULES TBCC SERVERS
They’re open to changes subject to the community’s wants/needs. That’s it. That’s the limit. I don’t know why you can’t handle the fact that the Devs are more open than you want them to be.
Sure… but you can only speculate as to what they won’t get to even if they like it, that doesn’t render any specific request as one of the things in the future they won’t get to.
This isn’t a discussion, it is as Riger pointed out, red vs blue. It is a personal preference disclosure, nothing more. They’re as likely to add Dual Spec as they are any other thing the modern TBCC audience feels strongly about, and “should” follows the same.
Neat! Glad to have the input!
/thread
I can. I just did.
You made an entire thread saying Dual Spec COULD NOT be included in #somechanges, and responded to anyone that disagreed with “Nope, you’re wrong!”
Liars gonna lie.
Isn’t Dual Spec a change, though?
#SomeChanges
A limit of which you have no pulse on other than your subjective interpretation of things they’ve said, which were vague to begin with because you can apply them to basically most things anyone would want.
God this is so annoying. Not everything someone says is an implication that you said it first. Sometimes things are said to make a point, it doesn’t always mean you said the exact thing. Not everything is about you.
This likely makes your chances even worse, most people could reasonably come to the conclusion. It means that if they’re making a special TBC+ server, they’d save all the wacky stuff for that server instead of poisoning the faithful recreation server with it.
Except it’s not because it is not nearly that simple.
We’ve already been over this, but there is circumstance and precedence with regards to what is already red/blue, and why it was red/blue in the first place.
This nuance is critical to the entire reason dual spec lands lower on the list of possibilities for most of us, and as long as you continue to ignore it, yeah, you’ll basically miss the forest for the trees entirely on this issue.
…with your own subjective opinion.
lol what is with you, you can’t go 5 posts without calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar, did you pick this up from that other wacky druid poster?
Just because I posted an opinion based on my interpretation of Blizzard stances on a thing, doesn’t mean I’m a liar. It does mean you interpret something different from the information we have available, which, is more likely to be the actual case. Can’t you just relax with acting like everyone is a liar?
So is adding Death Knights, or LFD, or Garrisons. That dual spec may be more popular than those things doesn’t make it inherently less absurd to add to TBCC, in my view.
I want Adaptive stats on armor.
#somechanges
Before you predictably claim it’s a “slippery slope fallacy” I’ll point out that you just used a slippery slope as justification … can’t have your cake and eat it too.
If you can use #somechanges to argue for the change you want then I can use it to argue for the change I want. Anyone can use it to justify any change they want.
#somechanges just means that Blizzard is open to implementing some changes … not that they will nor that they should in every case.
You’re gonna have to elaborate beyond just saying “This is bad for the game”, “There is no problem”
No idea what that is, but it sounds cool! Make a thread talking about it. If it’s compelling, I’ll get on board with it!
What? But I just said I was on board with it. 
Make the thread and explain what this is. I’ll show my support for it if it seems like something I’d want to!
I highly recommend you take the same approach with such posters as I’ve taken. Far less stress and better quality discussion as a result.
Plenty of room for reasonable discussion and healthy disagreement without the trollish attacks and bad faith actors.
Agree - #somechanges simply shows that there is openness to some changes on ActBlizzards part - not that they should make a specific change nor that they will.