Or exercise a little patience.
I hardly believe that the lack of dual speccing is making it so you can’t play at all. You’ve already played for months without the feature.
But, sure if you don’t like playing the game unsubbing is a perfectly acceptable option.
I also think you’re exaggerating the impact of respeccing.
And I hardly believe adding dual spec would utterly destroy your ability to play TBC Classic.
I will agree on the grounds that Dual Spec costs 10k.
It needs to be a real gold sink. Not 1000g. People are sitting on 10s of 1000s.
Never said it would.
It’s probably a bridge too far for me personally though.
The person I responded to was asking if we wanted “everyone who wants dual spec” to unsub. That is obviously hyperbole. I doubt anyone would unsub on the basis of not having a feature they already knew coming into the game wasn’t their.
It’s a double standard you’re applying, you apply absolute claims to my side and then protest that your side is “nuanced”. My side has done similar - but the truth is we’re at an impasse, We are two different markets who want different things from the game.
I do think you are less willing to compromise though. I want the cost of respects to be higher - however I don’t want to force that on a lot of players which I know don’t want that. So I don’t push for it. No change is actually a compromise to my own preferences.
Also I don’t think I’m entitled to have the game meet my own preferences. Above all I want it to closely resemble the game I remember as much as is feasible on a modern context - that’s what the game is meant to be - a classic recreation of an old expansion.
I know what you’ll say next - “isn’t wanting the game to resemble the original your own preference”. Well yes but this is where the argument keeps going around in circles and why it is absurd to make people arguing against change to prove why - because it’s arguing a negative. It’s not me imposing my personal preference - I’m not proposing a change.
All I need to do is demonstrate why the change you are proposing is not needed or might be undesirable. I don’t need to prove why my non change is needed - it’s the status quo and the game we’ve already all bought into.
Right, because that never happens. You’re fooling yourself if you think it doesn’t actually play out that way.
Check out the onion from a few years ago and see what has actually transpired. Your logic capability is rivaled only by that of a potatoe.
Ah…someone who sets up a number of complete strawmans and misrepresents every angle of the counter arguments to dual spec…I’ve definitely never seen this happen before…
Making an argument based entirely on vague, subjective, emotionally-charged statements IS an appeal to emotion.
“you must be forced to only play one spec, because…you just should, okay?”
No thanks.
Not an argument.
Moving the goalposts.
Talent choices are not “meaningful” when:
you can change them any time you want
everyone just runs cookie cutter specs anyway
And certain parts of the “outdated gameplay” are still hated by people who enjoy the older game.
Stop treating Classic as if it’s some kind of flawless perfect game that needs no changes whatsoever.
And if I look at the other dual spec threads, the majority of people agree with me here. There is a common sentiment that it’s such a high cost, that people don’t do it very often.
/shrug
“my slippery slope argument isn’t a slippery slope because it WILL happen!”
lmao
“It is easy to change specs whenever you want/nobody ever needs to change specs.”
“I need dual spec because it’s too difficult to change specs.”
Pick one. You can’t have both.
Not by all.
This isn’t slippery slope to assume that without a definition of scope for change that changes could occur that that in aggregate make the game unrecognisable.
So with that in mind what then is the scope for changes to TBC?
I know what I think is an acceptable scope - popular changes that stay within the known design intent of the original TBC game.
Now, what is the scope you are operating with?
Nice job putting words in my mouth.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Even if I listed that, you’d just say “I disagree, therefor you are wrong”.
I’m trying to understand what your scope is - Maybe use your own words, What scope limits change in your words?
Riger is no Fasc 
Riger is pretty agreeable if you nail him with a good point.
Sure - disagreements happen. At least we’d be arguing on the same terms though. Rather than - as you say - shifting the goal posts.
Apparently it’s needed sometimes.
Well you might find Fasc more agreeable if you could actually make a good point, but you’ve categorically failed to do so in regards to dual spec.
And least riger is honest enough to admit his issue is just #nochanges without coming up with absurd lies about dual spec.
plz add dual spec so i can play the game
dual spec didnt fix that last time it isn’t going to fix that this time.
plz add dual spec so i can play the game
you can play it just fine. no one’s stopping you from playing the game.
Help is not a synonym for fix.
it didnt fix it either.
Lol…
so are you going to actually address the statement or just rp a english teacher?