Adding Death Knights right now solves more of tank shortage than dual spec will ever do.
2 Likes
Welcome to how the world works. When a precedent has been set, it now can be used to support any related cases.
It is one of the pillars of our judicial systems. Hense the reason in court, previous cases are used to support evidence.
So yes, once something is changed it sets the precedent and can be used to justify any and all changes requested.
Having to wait 1+ hours for a tank or healer is no different than waiting 1+ hours for a BG. So if HvH BGs were added to solve that problem, then Blizzard must add Dual Spec to solve the grouping problem. The two are almost identical problems. And HvH BGs has set the precedent that waiting for 1+ hours for something is not acceptable and Blizzard must make changes to the game the solve the problem.
1 Like
But I’m not saying the change can’t be made because #nochanges. I’m saying it shouldn’t be made because it’s out of scope - and I’ve then defined what I think is a reasonable scope for reasonable changes.
You’re counter is “but there’s other changes”. So what? Without a scope you could make that argument of any change.
I want artifact weapons and you can’t say no because #somechanges.
That’s not a slippery slope that is literally a valid argument if yours is a valid argument.
Define a scope for what changes are acceptable and what changes aren’t and then we have something to discuss.
At the moment your position is unfalsifiable. There is no condition that can be met where your change could be argued to be unacceptable. Because you have not offered a scope. I can’t say you’re wrong because ‘X’ because you’ve offered no criteria to assess ‘x’ against. Therefore there is no discussion. The only thing I can give as a response is, okay and no.
WTH are you smoking, who mentioned #nochanges? This is about two problems that are almost identical in nature.
Fact: Players are having to wait 1+ hours to run group content.
Fact: Players were having to wait 1+ hours to run PvP content.
Fact: Blizzard added HvH BGs to solve the PvP content problem.
Hense Blizzard must now make the same efforts to solve the group content problem.
Dual Spec helps reduce the problem.
HvH BGs open the doors to requesting game level changes to address any case where players are having to wait to do content. IT SET THE PRECEDENT!
1 Like
Lore-wise, this is how Medivh taught Khadgar how to fly a gryphon.
Except Khadgar didn’t have to pay anything.
I didn’t say you did.
We actually have nothing to discuss as there’s no way to prove your position wrong.
There’s no condition where I can say your argument fails because it’s an unfalsifiable position.
You repeatedly avoid answering one simple question:
Under what condition would a change request be an unacceptable change?
None. This is a false dilemma. It’s always up to Blizzard.
There’s a financial incentive for them to do it versus not doing it given the support it has received and how many people continually ask for it.
WAIT. FOR. LICH KING
Enough with these topics.
Gold grinding removes the reason to grind gold for respecs and thus gives us less to do.
My entire discussion has been you can’t support same faction BGs and be against dual spec. You are either #nochanges or #somechanges you can not be #onlythechangesithinkarevalid.
Too late…boosts and same faction BGs ruined that dream 
If it survives
If you can’t offer a condition in which your proposal fails how am I or anyone able to argue against it? Essentially you want it and that’s the argument. Okay then whatever, I don’t.
Blizzard will have a defined scope for change and I’m willing to bet it’s close to the one I proposed. Without a scope it’s just “whatever”.
You replied to my response to another poster asking what the scope should be for change. What changes are acceptable and what aren’t? If there’s nothing in the “not acceptable” bucket then it’s conversation over really.
No, it has been said already. Same faction BGs have helped people queue for BGs faster, therefore they are not forced to wait for content. Dual spec will allow people to experience content in a different spec and may even improve the time it takes to get groups. TBC has already turned into retail with boosts and same faction BGs, that dream is dead.
Why? This is not original TBC nor will Wrath be Original Wrath, so why does the Classic version have to follow the same release cadence for features? Blizzard has already shown that TBCC can get features early and even features that never existed before, so what makes you think we have to wait for Wrath?
“you don’t have data (whatever that means) so you are wrong”
lmao
what “data” would there even be, here? You’re not making any sense.
If you don’t see why forcing people to grind gold for 2 hours just to play the game in a different way is bad game design, I can’t help you.
Every herb/mining node being camped by bots so the only decent way to farm is primals or other mob grinding…which takes way longer for a tank or healer to kill.
Tanks/healers just have severely limited farming options compared to DPS.
Ah, so instead of dual spec, we should instead be encouraging paying other players just to play the game
lmfao
Ah, so you’re one of those “wahh wahh stop improving yourself stop being good at the game” people. Got it.
Very telling that you respect someone who spews slippery slope logical fallacies.
Another troll to the ignore list.
Well if you want to talk about the scope of what blizzard considers acceptable for TBC Classic all you have to do is look at some of the things they’ve already done. Same Faction BG’s, boosts etc… that exceed dual spec in terms of scope.
1 Like
I want you to tell me the scope you think is acceptable. Then we have something to discuss. As it is you are arguing that you should have the change just because you want it. There’s nothing to discuss then any change you want you can argue for on that basis and it becomes an I like red vs Like blue conversation.
Unless you have a scope in mind that you can defend that offers conditions in which a change is acceptable or not acceptable there is no possible basis for discussion.
You can prove me wrong easily. I defined the scope as: wanted changes that fit within the design intention of the game. Show me that Dual spec fits and you win I lose.
There’s no such condition against your position. You claim it is justified because it just is, you want it. Any change you propose can be defended like that - it’s not falsifiable.
He already showed you that and you’re completely ignoring it
t r o l l
I can’t recall you replying to my request there’s a few of you here. Can you direct me to your criteria? I haven’t read all the posts from everyone here. Mainly just the replies.
1 Like
“I can’t read two posts above mine, you have to point it out to me”
Confirmed troll.